Is cached content charged for

qdada

qdada

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
18
Location
Sunninghill
Does iBurst use transparent proxy ?

If so, then surely cached content should not count towards the CAP ?

Surely they should not ? I imagine this goes for ADSL as well ?
 
Everything counts toward your cap most likely, even pings to peers. :D
 
Vio said:
Everything counts toward your cap most likely, even pings to peers. :D
Click to expand...
I suspect the same. The closer to you they measure, the easier it should be. That's probably why they haven't bothered (yet) to measure only international traffic.
 
yeah think about it, they'd still have to move the data around and it would just be local so they could make a cache server but all data would still count toward the cap
 
slimothy said:
yeah think about it, they'd still have to move the data around and it would just be local so they could make a cache server but all data would still count toward the cap
Click to expand...

I understand, all the more reason local should not be capped.
 
Vio said:
Everything counts toward your cap most likely, even pings to peers. :D
Click to expand...
Whats nasty about this, someone could get hold of say 30 machines. Have them all send syn requests to you for a day (no actual data) and start eating yuor cap up. You did nothing as a user, downloaded nothing etc... but still your cap is used
 
I find it worrying at no point did someone at WBS sit down and think why to make 3GB the magic cap number or what would and wouldn't coutn toward it. It seems like at the time of making the plans they said "well Telkom offers 3GB so we offer 3GB, everything coutns toward it' and some idiot who probably goes on a PC twice a week said that 3GB would be enough.

No one even thought about a cache server I bet
 
slimothy said:
I find it worrying at no point did someone at WBS sit down and think why to make 3GB the magic cap number or what would and wouldn't coutn toward it. It seems like at the time of making the plans they said "well Telkom offers 3GB so we offer 3GB, everything coutns toward it' and some idiot who probably goes on a PC twice a week said that 3GB would be enough.

No one even thought about a cache server I bet
Click to expand...

They offered it cuz they could get away with it... Telkom does why cant they?
BUT they do have a 6GB and 9Gb which makes them flexible...

I agree with you though... They did not think about it... if they had thought a little deeper they would have probably made it 6Gb cosidering the service 'in theory' is twice as fast as ADSL currently.
 
DFantom said:
Whats nasty about this, someone could get hold of say 30 machines. Have them all send syn requests to you for a day (no actual data) and start eating yuor cap up. You did nothing as a user, downloaded nothing etc... but still your cap is used
Click to expand...

I wonder what it costs in Mbytes just to keep a patched and firewalled Windoze/nix/mac machine online for a month.

In other words you leave your machine on day one and go for a business trip and come back after a month. I wonder how much of the 3gb allocation can one loose just by keeping the computer up.

Assuming no power disconnections and the network behaved.
 
i dont care about the poll and that sasan parvin reference was what I was talking about
 
qDot said:
I wonder what it costs in Mbytes just to keep a patched and firewalled Windoze/nix/mac machine online for a month.
Click to expand...
I get about an avg 8Mb of bandwidth wasted a day in that same situation :/
Some times higher and some times lower, depends on who is port scanning me, virus activity etc...

What I would like is only bandwidth that goes out the iBurst gateway is added to the cap. Thus all internal iBurst bandwidth (which costs them nothing) is not added to the cap
 
every piece of data sent and recieved by your connections, is accounted for.
 
not sure if the iburst site is now being added monitored for surfing as it loads very quickly even if the internet is slow.
 
not every piece of dat ais accounted for, you send data to the basestation to establish connectiosn and more data to determine if the station is best for you or to switch, only if it goes further than the basestation is it accounted for
 
slimothy said:
not every piece of dat ais accounted for, you send data to the basestation to establish connectiosn and more data to determine if the station is best for you or to switch, only if it goes further than the basestation is it accounted for
Click to expand...
I hope that's how WBS have implemented it, i.e. we only get zapped for the traffic we solicit, but still doesn't help with port scans & attempted penetrations that we don't solicit - I think I mentioned that a few times back in November...
 
well an effective port scan would be a syn scan that attempts to start a connection but doesn't actually make a connection, also called a stealth scan and that would chew up about kB a day if you had 4 hosts doing it non stop throughout the day
 
slimothy said:
well an effective port scan would be a syn scan that attempts to start a connection but doesn't actually make a connection, also called a stealth scan and that would chew up about kB a day if you had 4 hosts doing it non stop throughout the day
Click to expand...
It's not just one port scan - it's loads of them, and other stuff as well, also coming from other iBursters, it's my bandwidth I'm trying to conserve it, but all this stuff is depleting my bandwidth - thanks to the cap, I now disconnect when I'm not using the connection :(.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X