Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
I have written about accounting, but no one replied! once again: Hi all, there is one big problem i see: If you charge your customers for traffic, you must count the traffic, and the easiest and most reliable way to do this is on the firewall/router. Thats the way we do and therefore we need one IP per customer. Most customers have more than one site and for that we are using HTTP 1.1 (NameVirtualHosts). As long as there is no Package for apache to count the traffic !reliable! (the traffic counted via access logs is << real traffic ) I do not see a way to put all customers to a couple of IPs. Greetings from Germany Henning Brauer Hostmaster BSWS ------------------------------------------------ BS Web Services Roedingsmarkt 14 20459 Hamburg Germany info@bsmail.de www.bsws.de fon: +49 40 3750357-0 fax: +49 40 3750357-5 PLEASE USE EMAIL WHERE POSSIBLE Daniel Roesen <noc@entire-sy To: "lir-wg@ripe.net" <lir-wg@ripe.net> stems.com> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting owner-lir-wg@r ipe.net 11.05.00 12:31 On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 11:41:58AM +0000, Javier Llopis wrote:
There is one issue I'd like to bring up that we constantly run into and was never brought up in this debate, which somehow amazes me.
And another one, not raised (enough): Accounting Best regards, Daniel -- Entire Systems Network Operations Center noc@entire-systems.com Entire Systems GmbH - Ferbachstrasse 12 - 56203 Hoehr-Grenzhausen, Germany InterNIC-Handle: ES1238-ORG RIPE-Handle: ESN10-RIPE Tel: +49 2624 9550-55 GnuPG/PGP Key-ID: 0xBF3C40C9 http://www.entire-systems.com/noc/noc-key.asc GnuPG/PGP Fingerprint: 1F3F B675 1A38 D87C EB3C 6090 C6B9 DF48 BF3C 40C9
Henning,
(the traffic counted via access logs is << real traffic )
Can you expand on this? Is the difference between counted and real traffic random, or a roughly equal (or proportional) overhead for each server? Is the difference so significant that one cannot take it into account as part of the charging structure? Regards, Dave -- dave.wilson@heanet.ie --------------------------------------- +353-1-662-3412 It is one thing to pray; it is another to pray to entities who might not only be listening, but who will search you out on the road and beat you across the head with sticks if you say something that offends them. -- Neil Gaiman ------------------ For crypto key send a blank message to davew+pgp@heanet.ie
At Thu, 11 May 2000, owner-lir-wg@ripe.net wrote:
Can you expand on this? Is the difference between counted and real traffic random, or a roughly equal (or proportional) overhead for each server? Is the difference so significant that one cannot take it into account as part of the charging structure?
I did some research on this topic a while ago. The traffic Apache measures (based on filesize) can be 10 to 50% smaller than the traffic the router measures. Ofcourse this depends on the filesize, packetsize etc. Mark Lastdrager Pine Internet -- email: mark@lastdrager.nl :: ML1400-RIPE :: tel. +31-70-3111010 http://www.pine.nl :: RIPE RegID nl.pine :: fax. +31-70-3111011 PGP key ID 92BB81D1 :: Dutch security news @ http://security.nl Today's excuse: the router thinks its a printer.
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Mark Lastdrager wrote: Dear Sirs, It's really sad, but your apache-around discussion is not interesting for 90% mailing list readers... Are you sure that I (and all my collegue) want read THIS? We're ready to keep our eyes open for ANY RIPE team messages, even 1st April jokes, but NOT your life-around discussion about bananas prices in Honduras. To RIPE team: Sirs, please, open about-life@ripe.net mailing list discussion for this kind of writer :)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:44:34 +0200 (MET DST) From: Mark Lastdrager <mark@pine.nl> To: Dave Wilson <dave.wilson@heanet.ie> Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: IP assignment for virtual webhosting
At Thu, 11 May 2000, owner-lir-wg@ripe.net wrote:
Can you expand on this? Is the difference between counted and real traffic random, or a roughly equal (or proportional) overhead for each server? Is the difference so significant that one cannot take it into account as part of the charging structure?
I did some research on this topic a while ago. The traffic Apache measures (based on filesize) can be 10 to 50% smaller than the traffic the router measures. Ofcourse this depends on the filesize, packetsize etc.
Mark Lastdrager Pine Internet
-- email: mark@lastdrager.nl :: ML1400-RIPE :: tel. +31-70-3111010 http://www.pine.nl :: RIPE RegID nl.pine :: fax. +31-70-3111011 PGP key ID 92BB81D1 :: Dutch security news @ http://security.nl Today's excuse: the router thinks its a printer.
--- Pavel Golubev PG810-RIPE Global Ukraine Ltd.
At Thu, 11 May 2000, Pavel Golubev wrote:
It's really sad, but your apache-around discussion is not interesting for 90% mailing list readers... Are you sure that I (and all my collegue) want read THIS? We're ready to keep our eyes open for ANY RIPE team messages, even 1st April jokes, but NOT your life-around discussion about bananas prices in Honduras.
The discussion is about the problems with HTTP 1.1 hosting (which RIPE suggests because it safes address space). I support the ideas of RIPE on this matter, but want to know if anybody has come around the problems with the accounting. If you are not interested in this topic, please filter it. Furthermore I suggest that you obey the netiquette rules (e.g. learn how to quote). Ofcourse the banana prices in Honduras have my interest too, but I'm on a separate mailing list for that.
To RIPE team: Sirs, please, open about-life@ripe.net mailing list discussion for this kind of writer :)
'haha' Mark Lastdrager Pine Internet -- email: mark@lastdrager.nl :: ML1400-RIPE :: tel. +31-70-3111010 http://www.pine.nl :: RIPE RegID nl.pine :: fax. +31-70-3111011 PGP key ID 92BB81D1 :: Dutch security news @ http://security.nl Today's excuse: boss forgot system password
On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 03:04:26PM +0300, Pavel Golubev wrote:
It's really sad, but your apache-around discussion is not interesting for 90% mailing list readers...
<CITE> From: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@ripe.net> To: lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: IP assignment for virtual webhosting [...] We wish to add this to the agenda at the upcoming RIPE meeting for further discussion and welcome any input the community may have on this matter. </CITE>
Are you sure that I (and all my collegue) want read THIS?
man procmail Daniel Roesen Entire Systems NOC -- Entire Systems Network Operations Center noc@entire-systems.com Entire Systems GmbH - Ferbachstrasse 12 - 56203 Hoehr-Grenzhausen, Germany InterNIC-Handle: ES1238-ORG RIPE-Handle: ESN10-RIPE Tel: +49 2624 9550-55 GnuPG/PGP Key-ID: 0xBF3C40C9 http://www.entire-systems.com/noc/noc-key.asc GnuPG/PGP Fingerprint: 1F3F B675 1A38 D87C EB3C 6090 C6B9 DF48 BF3C 40C9
At Thu, 11 May 2000, owner-lir-wg@ripe.net wrote:
there is one big problem i see: If you charge your customers for traffic, you must count the traffic, and the easiest and most reliable way to do this is on the firewall/router. Thats the way we do and therefore we need one IP per customer. Most customers have more than one site and for that we are using HTTP 1.1 (NameVirtualHosts). As long as there is no Package for apache to count the traffic !reliable! (the traffic counted via access logs is << real traffic ) I do not see a way to put all customers to a couple of IPs.
Same over here. We have built our own database-driven system over the last years which links IP adresses to customers, measures their traffic and even has the ability to traffic-shape groups of IP adresses to a certain bandwith, like a Packeteer box can do. Input comes from the border router which has IP accounting. Ofcourse when customers want more than one hostname linked to the same virthost (but with different content) we use a name-based virthost. Because of this system it is very hard to implement name-based virtual hosting, all accounting is done on one IP adress then and we have to rethink our accounting scheme of virthosts (which takes time, costs money etc. etc.) Mark Lastdrager Pine Internet -- email: mark@lastdrager.nl :: ML1400-RIPE :: tel. +31-70-3111010 http://www.pine.nl :: RIPE RegID nl.pine :: fax. +31-70-3111011 PGP key ID 92BB81D1 :: Dutch security news @ http://security.nl Today's excuse: Dew on the telephone lines.
On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 01:22:38PM +0200, Mark Lastdrager wrote:
Because of this system it is very hard to implement name-based virtual hosting, all accounting is done on one IP adress then and we have to rethink our accounting scheme of virthosts (which takes time, costs money etc. etc.)
Exactly. You basically have to either a) analyze webserver logs (very inaccurate, CPU-intensive) b) write your own accounting software basing on sniffing, analyzing packet payloads for HTTP 1.1 header information and tracing TCP streams. This can also lead to a restructuring of you networks to be able to sniff. AFAIK Strato (hosting >500.000 .de domains) does something like b) 'cause they can't afford spending CPU time on their hosting server to do any accounting... (but this is hearsay). Best regards, Daniel Roesen Entire Systems NOC -- Entire Systems Network Operations Center noc@entire-systems.com Entire Systems GmbH - Ferbachstrasse 12 - 56203 Hoehr-Grenzhausen, Germany InterNIC-Handle: ES1238-ORG RIPE-Handle: ESN10-RIPE Tel: +49 2624 9550-55 GnuPG/PGP Key-ID: 0xBF3C40C9 http://www.entire-systems.com/noc/noc-key.asc GnuPG/PGP Fingerprint: 1F3F B675 1A38 D87C EB3C 6090 C6B9 DF48 BF3C 40C9
participants (6)
-
Daniel Roesen -
Dave Wilson -
Entire Systems NOC
-
henning.brauer＠bsmail.de -
Mark Lastdrager -
Pavel Golubev