Re: [NNagain] if you had a billion dollars

> On Oct 15, 2023, at 5:20 AM, le berger des photons via Nnagain > wrote: > > Gene, you seem to have missed the part where the psychopaths who run the > society have made most scientists believe things which just ain't true. You > talk about seeing gravity waves, and you probably refuse

[NNagain] The history of congestion control on the internet

It is wonderful to have your original perspectives here, Jack. But please, everyone, before a major subject change, change the subject? Jack's email conflates a few things that probably deserve other threads for them. One is VGV - great acronym! Another is about the "Placeholders" of TTL, and

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

Thinking of networks not being fast enough .. we wrote this years upon years ago at the Interop show.  We shouldn't have been surprised, but we were - a lot of "the press" believed this: https://www.cavebear.com/cb_catalog/techno/gaganet/ Here's the introduction snippet, the rest is via the

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

Hi Jack, > On Oct 15, 2023, at 21:59, Jack Haverty via Nnagain > wrote: > > The "VGV User" (Voice, Gaming, Videoconferencing) cares a lot about latency. > It's not just "rewarding" to have lower latencies; high latencies may make > VGV unusable. Average (or "typical") latency as the FCC

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

Hi Jack, Thanks again for sharing. It's very interesting to me. Today, the networks are shifting from capacity constrained to latency constrained, as can be seen in the IX discussions about how the speed of light over fiber is too slow even between Houston & Dallas. The mitigations against

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

The "VGV User" (Voice, Gaming, Videoconferencing) cares a lot about latency.   It's not just "rewarding" to have lower latencies; high latencies may make VGV unusable.   Average (or "typical") latency as the FCC label proposes isn't a good metric to judge usability.  A path which has high

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

I agree, but there are fortunately several large content networks that have had the forethought to put their stuff in Houston - Meta, Fastly, Akamai, AWS just to name a few… There is enough of a need to warrant those other networks having a presence, so hopefully it’s just a matter of time

Re: [NNagain] state broadband offices

And it is a lovely sunday here. I am going to get out to the pumpkin festival, fix my bike and make some music, with my real world neighbors, and I hope y'all do something like that as well. Have a song: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=midnight+special See ya tomorrow. Oct 19th is 4

[NNagain] state broadband offices

Since texas has been a focus, here is that broadband office, and many others. https://broadband.money/state-broadband-offices/texas director: https://www.linkedin.com/in/grconte/ I started this list in the hope that we could constructively engage across professions, and try to propose ideas that

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

For starters I would like to apologize for cc-ing both nanog and my new nn list. (I will add sender filters) A bit more below. On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 9:32 AM Tom Beecher wrote: >> >> So for now, we'll keep paying for transit to get to the others (since it’s >> about as much as transporting

Re: [NNagain] [LibreQoS] transit and peering costs projections

Just want to rewind back to the IX map above. The problem is that it's really misleading. Dive down on a number of those (a big number) and they are registered as an IX but they have few tier1 providers in them. The closest one to me is essentially just fed by Zayo. Not much of an IX when

[NNagain] Fwd: transit and peering costs projections

This may be of interest: Peering Costs and Fees -- Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos ___ Nnagain mailing list Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

I’ve found that most of the CDNs that matter are in one facility in Houston, the Databank West (formerly Cyrus One) campus. We are about to light up a POP there so we’ll at least be able to get PNIs to them. There is even an IX in the facility, but it’s relatively small (likely because the

Re: [NNagain] [LibreQoS] transit and peering costs projections

Man, I wanna know where you’re getting 100g transit for $4500 a month! Even someone as fly by night as Cogent wants almost double that, unfortunately. On Oct 15, 2023, at 07:43, Jim Troutman wrote:  Transit 1G wholesale in the right DCs is below $500 per port. 10gigE full port can be had

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

Houston is tricky as due to it's geographic scope, it's quite expensive to build an IX that goes into enough facilities to achieve meaningful scale. CDN 1 is in facility A. CDN 2 in facility B. CDN 3 is in facility C. When I last looked, it was about 80 driving miles to have a dark fiber ring

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

I've seen some attempts to put an IX at every corner, but I don't think those efforts will be overly successful. It's still difficult to gain sufficient scale in NFL-sized cities. Big content won't join without big eyeballs (well, not the national-level guys because they almost never will).

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

I've seen some attempts to put an IX at every corner, but I don't think those efforts will be overly successful. It's still difficult to gain sufficient scale in NFL-sized cities. Big content won't join without big eyeballs (well, not the national-level guys because they almost never will).

Re: [NNagain] [LibreQoS] transit and peering costs projections

Transit 1G wholesale in the right DCs is below $500 per port. 10gigE full port can be had around $1k-1.5k month on long term deals from multiple sources. 100g IP transit ports start around $4k. The cost of transport (dark or wavelength) is generally at least as much as the IP transit cost, and

Re: [NNagain] if you had a billion dollars

Gene, you seem to have missed the part where the psychopaths who run the society have made most scientists believe things which just ain't true. You talk about seeing gravity waves, and you probably refuse to imagine that gravity is an unlimited source of energy which we can exploit and send the

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

Exactly. Speed x distance = cost. This is _exactly_ why IXPs get set up. To avoid backhauling bandwidth from Dallas, or wherever. Loss, latency, out-of-order delivery, and jitter. All lower when you source your bandwidth closer. -Bill > On Oct 15, 2023,

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

> On Oct 15, 2023, at 01:01, Dave Taht wrote: > I am under the impression that many IXPs remain very successful, I know of 760 active IXPs, out of 1,148 total, so, over 31 years, two-thirds are still successful now. Obviously they didn’t all start 31 years ago, they started on a

Re: [NNagain] if you had a billion dollars

The grand approach is to immediately use the whole billion to advance one or more important matters. The opposite approach would be to treat it as an endowment, and only spend from the annual gains. A 5% return means $50 million per year. There are countless middle positions as well, if one