> > Why you are so sure that they have access to traffic data for many access > networks?
Well, no, I didn't say that I'm sure, actually I agree with you on everything you've said. But I can't say that it's purely speculation, as that would imply that I know more than I actually do. The overview of the method (from the 2016 - 2021 report) states the following: "The Cisco Visual Networking Index Forecast methodology has been developed based on a combination of analyst projections, in-house estimates and forecasts, and direct data collection. The analyst projections for broadband connections, video subscribers, mobile connections, and Internet application adoption come from SNL Kagan, Ovum, Informa Telecoms & Media, Infonetics, IDC, Gartner, AMI, Verto Analytics, Ookla Speedtest.net, Strategy Analytics, Screen Digest, Dell’Oro Group, Synergy, comScore, Nielsen, Maravedis, Machina Research, ACG Research, ABI Research, Media Partners Asia, IHS, International Telecommunications Union (ITU), CTIA, UN, telecommunications regulators, and others. Upon this foundation are layered Cisco’s own estimates for application adoption, minutes of use, and kilobytes per minute. The adoption, usage, and bit-rate assumptions are tied to fundamental enablers such as broadband speed and computing speed. All usage and traffic results are then validated using data shared with Cisco from service providers. Figure 1 shows the forecast methodology." Link to Figure 1 here <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JYIXRFmlIR00qOftqXnX9Z5gKikTol7X/view?usp=sharing> . Cheers, Etienne On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 5:18 PM Vasilenko Eduard < vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> wrote: > Why you are so sure that they have access to traffic data for many access > networks? > > Their BRASes market share is far from 100%. DSLAMs finished 20 years ago. > > For the cases where they support BRASes they could collect statistics. But > are they doing it? Carriers have not given permission (not even requested). > > I do not have a clue about VNI arrangement – it is magic. > > PS: Everything above and below in this thread is just my personal opinion. > > Eduard > > *From:* Etienne-Victor Depasquale [mailto:ed...@ieee.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2023 6:03 PM > *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> > *Cc:* Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com>; Phil Bedard <bedard.p...@gmail.com>; > NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > *Subject:* Re: Routed optical networks > > > > Eduard, you know the answer as well as I do, right :) ? > > > > Here's my answer: I think that Cisco can only estimate (let's not say > speculate, it has pretty bad connotations) what comes out of access > networks. > > > > No offence meant, I hope none is taken. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Etienne > > > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:47 PM Vasilenko Eduard < > vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Etienne, > > Look carefully what you have shown to me. It is a only speculation again > (“predictions”). It is just a table with a collection of all predictions in > the past. Moreover, averaged between years. > > I was asking for real data from the past 5 years. Are you sure that VNI > has it? > > > > If you would find real historical data in VNI, then we would be capable to > check the table that you have shown: was the guessing right? > > I strongly suspect an answer. > > > > Eduard > > *From:* Etienne-Victor Depasquale [mailto:ed...@ieee.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2023 2:46 PM > *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> > *Cc:* Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com>; Phil Bedard <bedard.p...@gmail.com>; > NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > *Subject:* Re: Routed optical networks > > > > To clarify the table I linked to in the previous email: > > > > Cisco estimates IP traffic exchanged over the access network by both > businesses and consumers with: > > > • endpoints over managed networks and > • endpoints over unmanaged networks (“Internet traffic”). > > > Both the mobile access network and the fixed access network are > considered. > > > > Cisco considers IP traffic over managed networks to be characterized by > passage through a single service provider. > > Without explicitly referring to quality of service (QoS), > > the implication is clearly that the traffic is controlled to meet the QoS > demanded by the service level agreement (SLA). > > > > In contrast, “Internet traffic” crosses provider domains; > > typically, this traffic is delivered on the basis of providers’ best > effort. > > These two kinds of traffic complement one another and collectively are > referred to as total global IP traffic. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Etienne > > > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:37 PM Etienne-Victor Depasquale <ed...@ieee.org> > wrote: > > Historically, this is what VNI has claimed > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JUG70rbZfaVHC3Z2HrECMOXJ2OnmtuxV/view?usp=sharing> > . > > > > Cheers, > > > Etienne > > > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:25 PM Vasilenko Eduard < > vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> wrote: > > I did investigate traffic for every Carrier while dealing with it as a > consultant (repeated many dozens of times). > > I have seen over a decade how traffic growth dropped year-over-year (from > 60% to 25% in 2019 when I dropped this activity in 2020 – covid blocked > travel). > > Sometimes I talk to old connections and they confirm that it is even less > now. > > In rear cases, It is typically possible to find this information on the > public Internet (I remember the case when Google disclosed traffic for > Pakistan at the conference with the explanation that 30% is attributed to > new subscribers, and an additional +30% is to more heavy content per > subscriber). > > But mostly, it was confidential information from a discussion with > Carriers – they all know very well their traffic growth. > > In general, traffic stat is pretty confidential. I did not have the > motivation to aggregate it. > > > > Sandvine is not representative of global traffic because DPI is installed > mostly for Mobiles. But Mobile subscriber is 10x less than fixed on traffic > – it is not the biggest source. Moreover, Mobiles would look better growing > because the limiting factor was on technology (5G proposed more than 4G, 4G > proposed much more than 3G) – it would probably would less disruptive in > the future. > > Fixed Carriers do not pay DPI premiums. And rarely share their traffic > publicly. Sandvine could not see it. > > > > VNI is claiming so many things. Please show where exactly they show > traffic growth (I am not interested in prediction speculations). Is it > possible to understand CAGR for the 5 last years? Is it declining or > growing? (traffic itself is for sure still growing) > > > > Of course, the disruption could come at any year and add a new S-curve > (Metaverse?). But disruption is by definition not predictable. > > > > PS: Everything above and below in this thread is just my personal opinion. > > > > Eduard > > *From:* Etienne-Victor Depasquale [mailto:ed...@ieee.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2023 12:48 PM > *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> > *Cc:* Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com>; Phil Bedard <bedard.p...@gmail.com>; > NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > *Subject:* Re: Routed optical networks > > > > Eduard, academics cite the VNI (and the Sandvine Global reports). > > > > Do you know of alternative sources that show traffic growth data you're > more comfortable with? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Etienne > > > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 9:34 AM Vasilenko Eduard < > vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> wrote: > > But it is speculation, not a trend yet. > > I remember 10y ago every presentation started from the claim that 100B of > IoT would drive XXX traffic. It did not happen. > > Now we see presentations that AI would be talking to AI that generates > YYYY traffic. > > Maybe some technology would push traffic next S-curve, maybe not. It is > still speculation. > > > > The traffic growth was stimulated (despite all VNIs) by 1) new > subscribers, 2) video quality for subscribers. Nothing else yet. > > It is almost finished for both trends. We are close to the plateau of > these S-curves. > > For some years (2013-2020) I was carefully looking at numbers for many > countries: it was always possible to split CAGR for these 2 components. The > video part was extremely consistent between countries. The subscriber part > was 100% proportional to subscriber CAGR. > > Everything else up to now was “marketing” to say it mildly. > > > > Reminder: nothing in nature could grow indefinitely. The limit always > exists. It is only a question of when. > > > > PS: Of course, marketing people could draw you any traffic growth – it > depends just on the marketing budget. > > > > Eduard > > *From:* Dave Taht [mailto:dave.t...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:41 PM > *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> > *Cc:* Phil Bedard <bedard.p...@gmail.com>; Etienne-Victor Depasquale < > ed...@ieee.org>; NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > *Subject:* Re: Routed optical networks > > > > Up until this moment I was feeling that my take on the decline of traffic > growth was somewhat isolated, in that I have long felt that we are nearing > the top of the S curve of the data we humans can create and consume. About > the only source of future traffic growth I can think of comes from getting > more humans online, and that is a mere another doubling. > > > > On the other hand, predictions such as 640k should be enough for everyone > did not pan out. > > > > On the gripping hand, there has been an explosion of LLM stuff of late, > with enormous models being widely distributed in just the past month: > > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/930939/ > > > > Could the AIs takeoff lead to a resumption of traffic growth? I still > don´t think so... > > > > > > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:59 PM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG < > nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > > Disclaimer: Metaverse has not changed Metro traffic yet. Then … > > > > I am puzzled when people talk about 400GE and Tbps in the Mero context. > > For historical reasons, Metro is still about 2*2*10GE (one “2” for > redundancy, another “2” for capacity) in the majority of cases worldwide. > > How many BRASes serve more than 40000/1.5=27k users in the busy hour? > > It means that 50GE is the best interface now for the majority of cases. > 2*50GE=100Gbps is good room for growth. > > Of course, exceptions could be. I know BRAS that handles 86k subscribers > (do not recommend anybody to push the limits – it was so painful). > > > > We have just 2 eyes and look at video content about 22h per week (on > average). Our eyes do not permit us to see resolution better than > particular for chosen distance (4k for typical TV, HD for smartphones, and > so on). Color depth 10bits is enough for the majority, 12bits is sure > enough for everybody. 120 frames/sec is enough for everybody. It would > never change – it is our genetics. > > Fortunately for Carriers, the traffic has a limit. You have probably seen > that every year traffic growth % is decreasing. The Internet is stabilizing > and approaching the plateau. > > How much growth is still awaiting us? 1.5? 1.4? It needs separate > research. The result would be tailored for whom would pay for the research. > > IMHO: It is not mandatory that 100GE would become massive in the metro. (I > know that 100GE is already massive in the DC CLOS) > > > > Additionally, who would pay for this traffic growth? It also limits > traffic at some point. > > I hope it would happen after we would get our 22h/4k/12bit/120hz. > > > > Now, you could argue that Metaverse would jump and multiply traffic by an > additional 2x or 3x. Then 400GE may be needed. > > Sorry, but it is speculation yet. It is not a trend like the current > (declining) traffic growth. > > > > Ed/ > > *From:* NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei....@nanog.org] > *On Behalf Of *Phil Bedard > *Sent:* Thursday, May 4, 2023 8:32 PM > *To:* Etienne-Victor Depasquale <ed...@ieee.org>; NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > *Subject:* Re: Routed optical networks > > > > It’s not necessarily metro specific although the metro networks could lend > themselves to overall optimizations. > > > > The adoption of ZR/ZR+ IPoWDM currently somewhat corresponds with your > adoption of 400G since today they require a QDD port. There are 100G QDD > ports but that’s not all that popular yet. Of course there is work to do > something similar in QSFP28 if the power can be reduced to what is > supported by an existing QSFP28 port in most devices. In larger networks > with higher speed requirements and moving to 400G with QDD, using the DCO > optics for connecting routers is kind of a no-brainer vs. a traditional > muxponder. Whether that’s over a ROADM based optical network or not, > especially at metro/regional distances. > > > > There are very large deployments of IPoDWDM over passive DWDM or dark > fiber for access and aggregation networks where the aggregate required > bandwidth doesn’t exceed the capabilities of those optics. It’s been done > at 10G for many years. With the advent of pluggable EDFA amplifiers, you > can even build links up to 120km* (perfect dark fiber) carrying tens of > terabits of traffic without any additional active optical equipment. > > > > It’s my personal opinion we aren’t to the days yet of where we can simply > build an all packet network with no photonic switching that carries all > services, but eventually (random # of years) it gets there for many > networks. There are also always going to be high performance applications > for transponders where pluggable optics aren’t a good fit. > > > > Carrying high speed private line/wavelength type services as well is a > different topic than interconnecting IP devices. > > > > Thanks, > > Phil > > > > > > *From: *NANOG <nanog-bounces+bedard.phil=gmail....@nanog.org> on behalf > of Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > *Date: *Monday, May 1, 2023 at 2:30 PM > *To: *NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > *Subject: *Routed optical networks > > Hello folks, > > > > Simple question: does "routed optical networks" have a clear meaning in > the metro area context, or not? > > > > Put differently: does it call to mind a well-defined stack of technologies > in the control and data planes of metro-area networks? > > > > I'm asking because I'm having some thoughts about the clarity of this > term, in the process of carrying out a qualitative survey of the results of > the metro-area networks survey. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Etienne > > > > -- > > Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale > Assistant Lecturer > Department of Communications & Computer Engineering > Faculty of Information & Communication Technology > University of Malta > > Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale > > > > > -- > > Podcast: > https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910227111937/ > > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos > > > > > -- > > Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale > Assistant Lecturer > Department of Communications & Computer Engineering > Faculty of Information & Communication Technology > University of Malta > > Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale > > > > > -- > > Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale > Assistant Lecturer > Department of Communications & Computer Engineering > Faculty of Information & Communication Technology > University of Malta > > Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale > > > > > -- > > Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale > Assistant Lecturer > Department of Communications & Computer Engineering > Faculty of Information & Communication Technology > University of Malta > > Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale > > > > > -- > > Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale > Assistant Lecturer > Department of Communications & Computer Engineering > Faculty of Information & Communication Technology > University of Malta > > Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale > -- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
