Sometime somewhere I read that top level peering agreements between "big guys" (like UUNet and AT&T) are based on the difference of the traffic received and transferred. And the one who requests more traffic pays the other.

Doesn't it mean the more websites one hosts, the less one pays? And it is profitable to host websites with huge amount of traffic?

Am I missing something here? If the above was true, why don't we get paid for our high traffic web sites? :blush:

peering != transit. If you want to run a fiber-optic cable from your server to UUNET they will be happy to accept packets destined for their network -- but they won't accept packets destined for anyone else's networks.

You do get paid for you high traffic websites :). If not you are in the wrong line of work.....
***
Doesn't it mean the more websites one hosts, the less one pays? And it is profitable to host websites with huge amount of traffic?
***

YES and YES. It is called volume and most likely ads.

Nice little joke and exercise in econ.

Originally posted by Hostking
It is called volume and most likely ads

Thanks, that's not what I asked. Sorry, I did not formulate clear question. The real question is, why does this practive does not extend down to us, web site owners? Why do we pay for traffic our web site generates? (OUTBOUND traffic I mean)

If you run a high traffic web site, you don't get paid just for traffic your website generates. Quite opposite, you have to pay. Everybody got used to that, but this is just unfare. Because the more traffic your site generates, the more money top level provider gets from other providers whose users are requesting information from your website.

Top level provider charges you (or your ISP) for traffic which your website generates. It also charges other providers who request information from your web site. I.e. it charges twice for the same traffic.

Did I get the picture wrong?

yes, you did get the picture wrong. The company which hosts your site has to pay for the bandwidth it uses. It pays the backbone providers -- the companies who provide transit for packets between the network the server resides on and the network the client reside on.

The backbone providers do indeed (normally) charge both source and destination for the traffic... but then, the backbone providers have to maintain hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber-optic cables.

It all works out in the end.

Originally posted by cperciva
yes, you did get the picture wrong. The company which hosts your site has to pay for the bandwidth it uses.That's clear.It pays the backbone providers -- the companies who provide transit for packets between the network the server resides on and the network the client reside on.Good, understood so far.The backbone providers do indeed (normally) charge both source and destination for the trafficWhy? You mean, if I have a network connected to backbone provider in CA, say, network A, and get a request from another network B, connected to this backbone provider in NY, will I pay both for inbound and outbound traffic? That's not how it was few years ago I believe. The one who requested the bytes paid for them. I.e. network B paid for INBOUND traffic from network A and network A paid for INBOUND traffic from network B. And nobody paid for OUTBOUND traffic (because it was already paid by other party).

If this practice changed, this explains why we pay for traffic. But I believe this is still not the case for country-to-country agreements.

Billing methods vary between companies: Some companies charge based on inbound+outbound, others based on the higher of the two, still others simply charge a flat rate based on the type of connection you have.

Telephone networks are based on "caller pays his phone company which pays the destination company" with the call recipient not paying anything (or in some cases even receiving money). But Internet != telephone network, and in most cases people pay for both incoming and outgoing traffic.

cperciva,

Thank you for your answers. I still think this is unfare, but now I know whom to blame - backbone providers and not my ISP. :)

Originally posted by dabystru
Doesn't it mean the more websites one hosts, the less one pays? And it is profitable to host websites with huge amount of traffic?
No, that's not what it means at all. You're confusing an arrangement between major backbones with much lower levels, essentially the end-user level.

Am I missing something here? If the above was true, why don't we get paid for our high traffic web sites? You're not so much missing as adding things that don't apply or exist. Since the above is not true, that' why we don't get paid for our sites.

There is nothing unfair about it nor is there anyone to blame. Bandwidth has a cost attached to it and it must be paid. The more you use the more you pay for. It works the same ways as for electricity, fuel and many other things we use. I see nothing at all unfair about the arrangement.

complain them to....:)

ok if we dont have anyone to complain;

just play this game in their rules

try to get more visitor ...

Originally posted by dabystru
Sometime somewhere I read that top level peering agreements between "big guys" (like UUNet and AT&T) are based on the difference of the traffic received and transferred. And the one who requests more traffic pays the other.

Doesn't it mean the more websites one hosts, the less one pays? And it is profitable to host websites with huge amount of traffic?


These peering agreements are based on what are presumed to be equivalent two-way traffic patterns. In other words, UUNET says "We're sending about the same amount of traffic to the AT&T backbone as they are sending to us, so we will work out a deal where there is no charge". If it is a smaller backbone provider, they need to get onto the UUNET backbone, so UUNET is going to charge them to pass traffic. Yes, UUNET is going to send less traffic to the small backbone provider then the small backbone provider is going to send to UUNET, but the small backbone provider needs access to UUNET, UUNET doesn't need access to the small backbone provider.

If you have a huge website you have lots of traffic coming in, but you have very little originating traffic that is traversing along another backbone. Therefore, you pay more money, because you need the network provider to provide you with connectivity, they don't need your site, because you are not sending any traffic their way.

This is why Exodus pays so much in peering fees every year, ISPs are sending lots of traffic to the Exodus data centers, but the Exodus data centers are not sending back that much traffic, ie Exodus needs the bandwidth providers more than the bandwidth providers need Exodus, so they pay :).

Hi, even for someone who has very little knowledge of internet networks and networking, the arguement makes no sense!

If I (Company A) am providing services to you (Company B) or your clients on behalf of you - and you are doing the same for me - then we are inter-trading with each other and we can come to some arrangement for clearing (balancing out) who owes who what at the end of the day. Similar systems exist in all industries where the players are buying and selling services off each other. For example, trading banks have clearing house systems where they settle the net difference of all the transactions back and forth between each other in a given day.

All is well that ends well because at the end of the day it is the customers of Company A and company B that are paying for the services. The money has to come from somewhere! And in the case of the telco's the end of the chain is you - the customer. That's where the money is coming from because you are the one receiving the service.

Originally posted by Duster
Bandwidth has a cost attached to it and it must be paid. I see nothing at all unfair about the arrangement. This is as 'unfair' as when you pay for both water you consume in your house and water you waste. We pay for both in UK. I think this is as unfair as paying for inbound and outbound traffic.

What I wanted to see, is that twice the cost per GB will be charged to network who receives the traffic, and none of the cost to network who sends it. That's what I call 'fair'.

Your answers showed to me this is not gonna happen, because I am the only one who thinks that the current practice is unfair. I do not see the reason to complain anymore.

Thank you for helping me to understand that!

You pay for bandwidth usage, because Internet transit is bloody expensive (UUNet charges us $2500/month for a T1's worth of traffic across their network), and because the fewer the hops between a site visitor and the hosting provider, the lower the better, and the quicker the traffic is passed along, the lower the latency. Also the telco's (baby bells) own the fiber and copper wires that this transit is being passed across. and they charge a healthy fee for just the lines, and then the transit is on top of that.

Providers with Internet backbone networks have private peering agreements with other providers whose networks are similar in size and traffic. We have a variety of private peering agreements with other small providers in our area for local and regional traffic, just as the larger providers have private peering agreements among themselves.

Then, there are public peering points such as MAE East where traffic is exchanged freely between all providers who use that peering point. Unfortunately, there is a lot of congestion here, and that can slow down the latency. These peering points are also best for local and regional traffic.

If you look at a map of the Internet, you can see just which backbone network has the most direct connections to it, and how the traffic moves from one place to another. Most traffic ends up being routed across their network eventually. These so called "Tier 1" companies charge for transit across their backbone networks (Verio, UUNet, Cable & Wireless, AT&T, etc). because they know that it keeps the hops and the latency down if instead of going through several peering points before getting to their backbone network, if it goes directly from ours to theirs with no congestion of peering points.

If this has left you wondering how your traffic is being handled, run a traceroute between yourself and your site. You'll be able to see just how many hops, how many ms per hop, and whether or not it's going direct from them to one of the "Tier 1" providers, or through various peering points. This should affect the cost you are paying for your bandwidth, as should the amount of redundancy which can increase the cost of providing bandwidth to you exponentially.

Wow... I just learned more about bandwidth from this post than I have throughout my life.

Great answer Phoenix.

Richard

I have another solution. If you want to learn about bandwidth and you pay. Jost go to a data center (ISP) and lease a rack with 100mb link to the internet and see how much you'll pay for bandwidth. Even with burstable rate you end up getting it. It's also always cheaper to get more than to get less and go over your limit. Like they say you learn by doing!!

Cahostnet> What is the current going rate for a rack with 100mb link?

Full Racks average around $1000.
100 mbps handoff really doesn't mean anything as most providers charge by traffic used. But if you were actually pushing around 100 mbps you would be looking at around $300-600 per mbps depending on provider. So around $30,000-$60,000 monthly.

Best Regards,

Originally posted by fuji
Wow... I just learned more about bandwidth from this post than I have throughout my life.

Great answer Phoenix.

Glad I could be of assistance. I had a lot of learning to do when I came here last year, I'd been a webmaster and a NT admin (both web and file servers) but I really didn't know how the Internet actually worked, other than you click on the DUN icon or open a browser window and you get pr0n.

I've still got to learn more about the routing protocols we use (OSPF and BGP4), those are still largely under the heading of 'black magic'.