Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Gian wrote: From a big picture standpoint, I would say P2P distribution is a non-starter, too many reluctant parties to appease. From a detail standpoint, I would say P2P distribution faces too many hurdles in existing network infrastructure to be justified. Simply reference the discussion of upstream bandwidth caps and you will have a wonderful example of those hurdles. Speaking about upstream hurdles, just out of curiosity (since this is merely a diversionary discussion at this point;) ... wouldn't peer-to-peer be the LEAST desirable approach for an SP that is launching WiFi nets as its primary first mile platform? I note that Earthlink is launching a number of cityscale WiFi nets as we speak, which is why I'm asking. Has this in any way, even subliminally, been influential in the shaping of your opinions about P2P for content distribution? I know that it would affect my views, a whole lot, since the prospects for WiFi's shared upstream capabilities to improve are slim to none in the short to intermediate terms. Whereas, CM and FTTx are known to raise their down and up offerings periodically, gated only by their usual game of chicken where each watches to see who'll be first. Frank On Mon Jan 8 22:26 , Gian Constantine sent: My contention is simple. The content providers will not allow P2P video as a legal commercial service anytime in the near future. Furthermore, most ISPs are going to side with the content providers on this one. Therefore, discussing it at this point in time is purely academic, or more so, diversionary.Personally, I am not one for throttling high use subscribers. Outside of the fine print, which no one reads, they were sold a service of Xkbps down and Ykbps up. I could not care less how, when, or how often they use it. If you paid for it, burn it up.I have questions as to whether or not P2P video is really a smart distribution method for service provider who controls the access medium. Outside of being a service provider, I think the economic model is weak, when there can be little expectation of a large scale take rate.Ultimately, my answer is: we're not there yet. The infrastructure isn't there. The content providers aren't there. The market isn't there. The product needs a motivator. This discussion has been putting the cart before the horse.A lot of big pictures pieces are completely overlooked. We fail to question whether or not P2P sharing is a good method in delivering the product. There are a lot of factors which play into this. Unfortunately, more interest has been paid to the details of this delivery method than has been paid to whether or not the method is even worthwhile.From a big picture standpoint, I would say P2P distribution is a non-starter, too many reluctant parties to appease. From a detail standpoint, I would say P2P distribution faces too many hurdles in existing network infrastructure to be justified. Simply reference the discussion of upstream bandwidth caps and you will have a wonderful example of those hurdles. Gian Anthony ConstantineSenior Network Design EngineerEarthlink, Inc. On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote:So, kind of back to the original question: what is going to be the reaction of your average service provider to the presence of an increasing number of people sucking down massive amounts of video and spitting it back out again... nothing? throttling all traffic of a certain type? shutting down customers who exceed certain thresholds? or just throttling their traffic? massive upgrades of internal network hardware? Is it your contention that there's no economic model, given the architecture of current networks, which would would generate enough revenue to offset the cost of traffic generated by P2P video? Thomas Gian Constantine wrote: There may have been a disconnect on my part, or at least, a failure to disclose my position. I am looking at things from a provider standpoint, whether as an ISP or a strict video service provider. I agree with you. From a consumer standpoint, a trickle or off-peak download model is the ideal low-impact solution to content delivery. And absolutely, a 500GB drive would almost be overkill on space for disposable content encoded in H.264. Excellent SD (480i) content can be achieved at ~1200 to 1500kbps, resulting in about a 1GB file for a 90 minute title. HD is almost out of the question for internet download, given good 720p at ~5500kbps, resulting in a 30GB file for a 90 minute title. Service providers wishing to provide this service to their customers may see some success where they control the access medium (copper loop, coax, FTTH). Offering such a service to customers outside of this scope would prove very expensive, and likely, would never see a return on the investment without extensive peering arrangements. Even then, distribution rights would be very difficult to attain without very deep pockets and crippling revenue sharing. The studios really dislike the idea of transmission
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth usage would be 3% of the unicast. I'm a bit skeptic for future of channels. For making money from the long tail, you have to have to adapt your distribution to user's needs. It is not only format, codec ... but also time frame. You can organise your programs in channels, but they will not run simultaneously for all the users. I want to control my TV, I don't want to my TV jockey my life. For the distribution, you as content owner have to help the ISP find the right way to distribute your content. In example: having distribution center in Tier1 ISP network will make money from Tier2 ISP connected directly to Tier1. Probably, having CDN (your own or pay for service) will be the only one way for large scale non synchronous programing. Regards Michal
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth usage would be 3% of the unicast. I'm a bit skeptic for future of channels. For making money from the long tail, you have to have to adapt your distribution to user's needs. It is not only format, codec ... but also time frame. You can organise your programs in channels, but they will not run simultaneously for all the users. I want to control my TV, I don't want to my TV jockey my life. For the distribution, you as content owner have to help the ISP find the right way to distribute your content. In example: having distribution center in Tier1 ISP network will make money from Tier2 ISP connected directly to Tier1. Probably, having CDN (your own or pay for service) will be the only one way for large scale non synchronous programing. Regards Michal
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
At 08:40 p.m. 9/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: It would not be any easier. The negotiations are very complex. The issue is not one of infrastructure capex. It is one of jockeying between content providers (big media conglomerates) and the video service providers (cable companies). We're seeing a degree of co-operation in this area. Its being driven by the market. - see below. snip On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Bora Akyol wrote: An additional point to consider is that it takes a lot of effort and to get a channel allocated to your content in a cable network. This is much easier when TV is being distributed over the Internet. The other bigger driver, is that for most broadcasters (both TV and Radio), advertising revenues are flat, *except* in the on-line area. So they are chasing on-line growth like crazy. Typically on-line revenues now make up around 25% of income. So broadcasters are reacting and developing quite large systems for delivering content both new and old. We're seeing these as a mixture of live streams, on-demand streams, on-demand downloads and torrents. Basically, anything that works and is reliable and can be scaled. (we already do geographic distribution and anycast routing). And the broadcasters won't pay flash transit charges. They are doing this stuff from within existing budgets. They will put servers in different countries if it makes financial sense. We have servers in the USA, and their biggest load is non-peering NZ based ISPs. And broadcasters aren't the only source of large content. My estimate is that they are only 25% of the source. Somewhere last year I heard John Chambers say that many corporates are seeing 500% growth in LAN traffic - fueled by video. We do outside webcasting - to give you an idea of traffic, when we get a fiber connex, we allow for 6GBytes per day between an encoder and the server network - per programme. We often produce several different programmes from a site in different languages etc. Each one is 6GB. If we don't have fiber, it scales down to about 2GB per programme. (on fiber we crank out a full 2Mbps Standard Def stream, on satellite we only get 2Mbps per link). I have a chart by my phone that gives the minute/hour/day/month traffic impact of a whole range of streams and refer to it every day. Oh - we can do 1080i on demand and can and do produce content in that format. They're 8Mbps streams. Not many viewers tho :-) We're close to being able to webcast it live. We currently handle 50+ radio stations and 12 TV stations, handling around 1.5 to 2million players a month, in a country with a population of 4million. But then my stats could be lying.. Rich (long time lurker)
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
How many channels can you get on your (terrestrial) broadcast receiver? There are about 30 channels broadcast free-to-air on digital freeview in the UK. I only have so many hours in the day so I never have a problem in finding something. Some people are TV junkies or they only want some specific content so they get satellite dishes. Any Internet TV service has a limited market because it competes head-on with free-to-air and satellite services. And it is difficult to plug Internet TV into your existing TV setup. --Michael Dillon
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: between handling 30K unicast streams, and 30K multicast streams that each have only one or at most 2-3 viewers? My opinion on the downside of video multicast is that if you want it realtime your SLA figures on acceptable packet loss goes down from fractions of a percent into the thousands of a percent, at least with current implementations of video. Imagine internet multicast and having customers complain about bad video quality and trying to chase down that last 1/10 packet loss that makes peoples video pixelate every 20-30 minutes, and the video stream doesn't even originate in your network? For multicast video to be easier to implement we need more robust video codecs that can handle jitter and packet loss that are currently present in networks and handled acceptably by TCP for unicast. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 10, 2007, at 5:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: between handling 30K unicast streams, and 30K multicast streams that each have only one or at most 2-3 viewers? My opinion on the downside of video multicast is that if you want it realtime your SLA figures on acceptable packet loss goes down from fractions of a percent into the thousands of a percent, at least with current implementations of video. Actually, this is true with unicast as well. This can (I think) largely be handled by a fairly moderate amount of Forward Error Correction. Regards Marshall Imagine internet multicast and having customers complain about bad video quality and trying to chase down that last 1/10 packet loss that makes peoples video pixelate every 20-30 minutes, and the video stream doesn't even originate in your network? For multicast video to be easier to implement we need more robust video codecs that can handle jitter and packet loss that are currently present in networks and handled acceptably by TCP for unicast. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Internet Video: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the US Peering Ecosystem (v1.2)
Then that wouldn't be enough since the other Tier 1's would need to upgrade their peering infrastructure to handle the larger peering links (n*10G), having to argue to their CFO that they need to do it so that their competitors can support the massive BW customers. Someone will take the business so that traffic is coming regardless, they can either be that peer or be the source with the cash. If they can't do either then they're not in business, I hope they wouldn't ignore it congesting their existing peers (I know...) Then even if the peers all upgraded the peering gear at the same time, the backbones would have to be upgraded as well to get that traffic out of the IXes and out to the eyeball networks. The Internet doesn't scale, turn it off brandon
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:43:11AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And it is difficult to plug Internet TV into your existing TV setup. Can your average person plug a cable / satellite / terrestrial (in the UK, the only mainstream option here for self-install is terrestrial)? Power, TV, and antenna? Then why can't they plug in Power, TV phone line? That's where IPTV STBs are going... Simon
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Many of the small carriers, who are doing IPTV in the U.S., have acquired their content rights through a consortium, which has since closed its doors to new membership. I cannot stress this enough: content is the key to a good industry- changing business model. Broad appeal content will gain broad interest. Broad interest will change the playing field and compel content providers to consider alternative consumption/delivery models. The ILECs are going to do it. They have deep pockets. Look at how quickly they were able to get franchising laws adjusted to allow them to offer video. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:30 AM, Christian Kuhtz wrote: Marshall, I completely agree, and due diligence on business models will show that fact very clearly. And nothing much has changed here in terms of substance over the last 4+ yrs either. Costs and opportunities have changed or evolved rather, but not the mechanics. Infrastructure capital is very much the gating factor in every major video distribution infrastructure (and the reason why DOCSIS 3.0 is just such a neato thing). The carriage deals are merely table stakes, and that doesn't mean they're easy. They are obtainable. And some business models are just fundamentally broken. Examples for infrastructure costs are size of CSA's or cost upgrading CPE is a far bigger deal than carriage. And if you can't get into RT's in a ILEC colo arrangement, that doesn't per se globally invalidate business models, but rather provides unique challenges and limitations on a given specific business model. What has changed is that ppl are actually 'doing it'. And that proves that several models are viable for funding in all sorts of flavors and risks. IPTV is fundamentally subject to the analog fallacies of VoIP replacing 1FR/1BR service on 1:1 basis (toll arbitrage or anomalies aside). There seems to be plenty of that. A new IP service offering no unique features over specialzed and depreciated infrastructure will not be viable until commoditized and not at an early maturity level like where IPTV is at. Unless an IPTV service offers a compelling cost advantage, mass adoption will not occur. And any cost increase will have to be justifiable to consumers, and that cannot be underestimated. But, some just continue to ignore those fundamentals and those business models will fail. And we should be thankful for that self cleansing action of a functioning market. Enough rambling after a long day at CES, I suppose. Thanks for reading this far. Best regards, Christian -- Sent from my BlackBerry. -Original Message- From: Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:52:06 To:Gian Constantine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:Bora Akyol [EMAIL PROTECTED],Simon Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Gian Constantine wrote: It would not be any easier. The negotiations are very complex. The issue is not one of infrastructure capex. It is one of jockeying between content providers (big media conglomerates) and the video service providers (cable companies). Not necessarily. Depends on your business model. Regards Marshall Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Bora Akyol wrote: Simon An additional point to consider is that it takes a lot of effort and to get a channel allocated to your content in a cable network. This is much easier when TV is being distributed over the Internet. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that the broadcast model for streaming content is so successful, why would you want to use the Internet for it? What is the benefit? How many channels can you get on your (terrestrial) broadcast receiver? If you want more, your choices are satellite or cable. To get cable, you need to be in a cable area. To get satellite, you need to stick a dish on the side of your house, which you may not want to do, or may not be allowed to do. With IPTV, you just need a phoneline (and be close enough to the exchange/CO to get decent xDSL rate). In the UK, I'm already delivering 40+ channels over IPTV (over inter-provider multicast, to any UK ISP that wants it). Simon
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 1/10/07, Simon Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:43:11AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And it is difficult to plug Internet TV into your existing TV setup. Can your average person plug a cable / satellite / terrestrial (in the UK, the only mainstream option here for self-install is terrestrial)? Power, TV, and antenna? Then why can't they plug in Power, TV phone line? That's where IPTV STBs are going... Simon Especially as more and more ISPs/telcos hand out WLAN boxen of various kinds - after all, once you have some sort of Linux (usually) networked appliance in the user's premises, it's quite simple to deploy more services (hosted VoIP, IPTV, media centre, connected storage, maybe SIP/Asterisk..) on top of that. Slingbox-like features and mobile-world things like UMA are also pushing us that way.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Ah-ha. You are mistaken. :-) My focus is next-gen broadband and video. The wifi guys have their own department. Good try, though. :-) Personally, I am against the peer-to-peer method for business reasons, not technical ones. It will be difficult to get blessed by the content providers and painful to support (high opex). I have confidence in creative engineers. I am sure any one of us could come up with a workable solution for P2P given the time and proper motivation. All in all, P2P is really limited to a VoD model. It is hard to say whether or not VoD would ever become such an important service over the Internet, as to press content providers into an agreeable nature. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 10, 2007, at 3:25 AM, Frank Coluccio wrote: Gian wrote: From a big picture standpoint, I would say P2P distribution is a non-starter, too many reluctant parties to appease. From a detail standpoint, I would say P2P distribution faces too many hurdles in existing network infrastructure to be justified. Simply reference the discussion of upstream bandwidth caps and you will have a wonderful example of those hurdles. Speaking about upstream hurdles, just out of curiosity (since this is merely a diversionary discussion at this point;) ... wouldn't peer-to-peer be the LEAST desirable approach for an SP that is launching WiFi nets as its primary first mile platform? I note that Earthlink is launching a number of cityscale WiFi nets as we speak, which is why I'm asking. Has this in any way, even subliminally, been influential in the shaping of your opinions about P2P for content distribution? I know that it would affect my views, a whole lot, since the prospects for WiFi's shared upstream capabilities to improve are slim to none in the short to intermediate terms. Whereas, CM and FTTx are known to raise their down and up offerings periodically, gated only by their usual game of chicken where each watches to see who'll be first. Frank On Mon Jan 8 22:26 , Gian Constantine sent: My contention is simple. The content providers will not allow P2P video as a legal commercial service anytime in the near future. Furthermore, most ISPs are going to side with the content providers on this one. Therefore, discussing it at this point in time is purely academic, or more so, diversionary.Personally, I am not one for throttling high use subscribers. Outside of the fine print, which no one reads, they were sold a service of Xkbps down and Ykbps up. I could not care less how, when, or how often they use it. If you paid for it, burn it up.I have questions as to whether or not P2P video is really a smart distribution method for service provider who controls the access medium. Outside of being a service provider, I think the economic model is weak, when there can be little expectation of a large scale take rate.Ultimately, my answer is: we're not there yet. The infrastructure isn't there. The content providers aren't there. The market isn't there. The product needs a motivator. This discussion has been putting the cart before the horse.A lot of big pictures pieces are completely overlooked. We fail to question whether or not P2P sharing is a good method in delivering the product. There are a lot of factors which play into this. Unfortunately, more interest has been paid to the details of this delivery method than has been paid to whether or not the method is even worthwhile.From a big picture standpoint, I would say P2P distribution is a non-starter, too many reluctant parties to appease. From a detail standpoint, I would say P2P distribution faces too many hurdles in existing network infrastructure to be justified. Simply reference the discussion of upstream bandwidth caps and you will have a wonderful example of those hurdles. Gian Anthony ConstantineSenior Network Design EngineerEarthlink, Inc. On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote:So, kind of back to the original question: what is going to be the reaction of your average service provider to the presence of an increasing number of people sucking down massive amounts of video and spitting it back out again... nothing? throttling all traffic of a certain type? shutting down customers who exceed certain thresholds? or just throttling their traffic? massive upgrades of internal network hardware? Is it your contention that there's no economic model, given the architecture of current networks, which would would generate enough revenue to offset the cost of traffic generated by P2P video? Thomas Gian Constantine wrote: There may have been a disconnect on my part, or at least, a failure to disclose my position. I am looking at things from a provider standpoint, whether as an ISP or a strict video service provider. I agree with you. From a consumer standpoint, a trickle or off- peak download model is
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
All H.264? Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 10, 2007, at 4:41 AM, Richard Naylor wrote: At 08:40 p.m. 9/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: It would not be any easier. The negotiations are very complex. The issue is not one of infrastructure capex. It is one of jockeying between content providers (big media conglomerates) and the video service providers (cable companies). We're seeing a degree of co-operation in this area. Its being driven by the market. - see below. snip On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Bora Akyol wrote: An additional point to consider is that it takes a lot of effort and to get a channel allocated to your content in a cable network. This is much easier when TV is being distributed over the Internet. The other bigger driver, is that for most broadcasters (both TV and Radio), advertising revenues are flat, *except* in the on-line area. So they are chasing on-line growth like crazy. Typically on- line revenues now make up around 25% of income. So broadcasters are reacting and developing quite large systems for delivering content both new and old. We're seeing these as a mixture of live streams, on-demand streams, on-demand downloads and torrents. Basically, anything that works and is reliable and can be scaled. (we already do geographic distribution and anycast routing). And the broadcasters won't pay flash transit charges. They are doing this stuff from within existing budgets. They will put servers in different countries if it makes financial sense. We have servers in the USA, and their biggest load is non-peering NZ based ISPs. And broadcasters aren't the only source of large content. My estimate is that they are only 25% of the source. Somewhere last year I heard John Chambers say that many corporates are seeing 500% growth in LAN traffic - fueled by video. We do outside webcasting - to give you an idea of traffic, when we get a fiber connex, we allow for 6GBytes per day between an encoder and the server network - per programme. We often produce several different programmes from a site in different languages etc. Each one is 6GB. If we don't have fiber, it scales down to about 2GB per programme. (on fiber we crank out a full 2Mbps Standard Def stream, on satellite we only get 2Mbps per link). I have a chart by my phone that gives the minute/hour/day/month traffic impact of a whole range of streams and refer to it every day. Oh - we can do 1080i on demand and can and do produce content in that format. They're 8Mbps streams. Not many viewers tho :-) We're close to being able to webcast it live. We currently handle 50+ radio stations and 12 TV stations, handling around 1.5 to 2million players a month, in a country with a population of 4million. But then my stats could be lying.. Rich (long time lurker)
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Sounds a little like low buffering and sparse I-frames, but I'm no MPEG expert. :-) Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 10, 2007, at 5:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: between handling 30K unicast streams, and 30K multicast streams that each have only one or at most 2-3 viewers? My opinion on the downside of video multicast is that if you want it realtime your SLA figures on acceptable packet loss goes down from fractions of a percent into the thousands of a percent, at least with current implementations of video. Imagine internet multicast and having customers complain about bad video quality and trying to chase down that last 1/10 packet loss that makes peoples video pixelate every 20-30 minutes, and the video stream doesn't even originate in your network? For multicast video to be easier to implement we need more robust video codecs that can handle jitter and packet loss that are currently present in networks and handled acceptably by TCP for unicast. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Then why can't they plug in Power, TV phone line? That's where IPTV STBs are going... OK, I can see that you could use such a set-top box to sell broadband to households which would not otherwise buy Internet services. But that is a niche market. Especially as more and more ISPs/telcos hand out WLAN boxen of various kinds - after all, once you have some sort of Linux (usually) networked appliance in the user's premises, it's quite simple to deploy more services (hosted VoIP, IPTV, media centre, connected storage, maybe SIP/Asterisk..) on top of that. He didn't say that his STB had an Ethernet port. And I'm not aware of any generic Linux box that can be used to deploy additional services other than do-it-yourself. And that too is a niche market. Also, note that the proliferation of boxes, each needing its own power connection and some place to sit, is causing its own problems in the household. Stacking boxes is not straightforward because some have air vents on top and others are not flat on top. The TV people have not learned the lessons of that the hi-fi component people learned back in the 1960s. --Michael Dillon
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 1/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then why can't they plug in Power, TV phone line? That's where IPTV STBs are going... OK, I can see that you could use such a set-top box to sell broadband to households which would not otherwise buy Internet services. But that is a niche market. Especially as more and more ISPs/telcos hand out WLAN boxen of various kinds - after all, once you have some sort of Linux (usually) networked appliance in the user's premises, it's quite simple to deploy more services (hosted VoIP, IPTV, media centre, connected storage, maybe SIP/Asterisk..) on top of that. He didn't say that his STB had an Ethernet port. And I'm not aware of any generic Linux box that can be used to deploy additional services other than do-it-yourself. And that too is a niche market. For example: France Telecom's consumer ISP in France (Wanadoo) is pushing out lots and lots of WLAN boxes to its subs, which it brands Liveboxes. As well as the router, they also carry their carrier-VoIP and IPTV STB functions. If they can be remotely managed, then they are a potential platform for further services beyond that. See also 3's jump into Slingboxes. Also, note that the proliferation of boxes, each needing its own power connection and some place to sit, is causing its own problems in the household. Stacking boxes is not straightforward because some have air vents on top and others are not flat on top. The TV people have not learned the lessons of that the hi-fi component people learned back in the 1960s. Analogous to the question of whether digicams, iPods etc will eventually be absorbed by mobile devices. Will convergence on IP, which tends towards concentration of functions on a common box, outpace the creation of new boxes? CES this year saw a positive rash of home server products.
RFQ: IP service in U.K. for U.S. hosting company
Ladies Gentlemen, A while ago I posted some questions about transport from the U.S., peering in London and received very good technical feedback from this group. We've determined that the best option for our problem is not peering, but the purchase of service from a provider with a good network in the U.K. and on the continent. We'd like to receive proposals based on this requirement. The customer has equipment colocated with Sprint fiber in Champaign Illinois and this appears to be the only sensible route out of their network. Existing IP service is from Sprint and McLeod. The current network is cisco 7507s and we don't envision any changes here beyond an upgrade from RSP4 to RSP8 at some point in the future. We expect to receive a DS3 level interface but based on traffic we think we'd need perhaps one third of its total capacity. Feel free to email me if you need more information. -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] // IM:layer3arts voice: 402 408 5951 cell : 402 301 9555 fax : 402 408 6902
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Alexander Harrowell wrote: Analogous to the question of whether digicams, iPods etc will eventually be absorbed by mobile devices. I guess eventually it will go the other way around as well. I was very surprised not to see Steve Jobs announce an iPod Nano-Phone. A iPod Nano with bare-bone GSM functionality as provided by one of the recent single-chip developments from TI and SiLabs AeroFon. Would fit nicely and cover 85% of all use cases, that is voice and SMS. True mass-market. Pop in your SIM and you're ready to rock. A slightly enhanced click-wheel would make a nice input device too (and no, do not emulate a rotary phone). All together would cost only $15 more than the base iPod. GSM single chip is really cheap. Yeah, I'm a dreamer. -- Andre
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Will Hargrave wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to admit that I have no idea how BT charges ISPs for wholesale ADSL. If there is indeed some kind of metered charging then Internet video will be a big problem for the business model. They vary, it depends on what pricing model has been selected. http://tinyurl.com/yjgsum has BT Central pipe pricing. Note those are prices, not telephone numbers. ;-) If you convert into per-megabit charges - at least an order of magnitude greater than the cost of transit, and at least a couple of orders of magnitude more than peering/partial transit. A cursory look at the document doesn't seem to show any prices above 622Mbps, but for that you're looking at about £160,000 a year or £21/Mbps/month. 2GB per day, equates to 190Kbps (assuming a perfectly even distribution pattern, which of course would never happen), which would be £3.98 a month per user. In reality I imagine that you could see usage peaking at about 3 times the average, or considerably greater if large flash crowd events occur. I would say that in the UK market today, those sorts of figures are enough to destroy current margins, but certainly not high enough that the costs couldn't be passed onto the end user as part of an Internet TV package. p2p is no panacea to get around these charges; in the worst case p2p traffic will just transit your central pipe twice, which means the situation is worse with p2p not better. For a smaller UK ISP, I do not know if there is a credible wholesale LLU alternative to BT. Both Bulldog (CW) and Easynet sell wholesale LLU via an L2TP handoff. It's been a while since I was in that game so any prices I have will be out of date by now, but IIRC both had the option to pay them per line _or_ for a central pipe style model. The per line prices were just about low enough to remain competitve, with the central pipe being cheaper for volume (but of course, only because you'd currently need to buy far less bandwidth than the total of all the lines in use; most ASDL users consume a surprisingly small amount of bandwidth and they aggregate very well). Note this information is of course completely UK-centric. A more regionalised model (21CN?!) would change the situation. Will S
Re: RFQ: IP service in U.K. for U.S. hosting company
We've determined that the best option for our problem is not peering, but the purchase of service from a provider with a good network in the U.K. and on the continent. We'd like to receive proposals based on this requirement. Then you should write up an RFP and send it to companies that meet your requirement. Otherwise you risk only getting quotes from people who troll the mailing lists, desperate for business. --Michael Dillon
Re: Internet Video: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the US Peering Ecosystem (v1.2)
Why are folks turning away 10G orders? I forgot to mention a couple other issues that folks brought up: 4) the 100G equipment won't be standardized for a few years yet, so folks will continue to trunk which presents its own challenges over time. 5) the last mile infrastructure may not be able to/willing to accept the competing video traffic . There was some disagreement among the group I discussed this point with however. A few of the cable operations guys said there is BW and the biz guys don't want to 'give it away' when there is a potential to charge or block (or rather mitigate the traffic as they do now). My favorite data point was from Geoff Huston who said that the cable companies are clinging to their 1998 business model as if it were relevent in the world where peer-2-peer for distribution of large objects has already won. He believes that the sophisticated peer-2-peer is encrypting and running over ports noone will shut off, the secure shell ports that are required for VPNs. So give up, be the best dumb pipes you can be I guess. Bill On 1/10/07, Brandon Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then that wouldn't be enough since the other Tier 1's would need to upgrade their peering infrastructure to handle the larger peering links (n*10G), having to argue to their CFO that they need to do it so that their competitors can support the massive BW customers. Someone will take the business so that traffic is coming regardless, they can either be that peer or be the source with the cash. If they can't do either then they're not in business, I hope they wouldn't ignore it congesting their existing peers (I know...) Then even if the peers all upgraded the peering gear at the same time, the backbones would have to be upgraded as well to get that traffic out of the IXes and out to the eyeball networks. The Internet doesn't scale, turn it off brandon -- // // William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED] // Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison, Equinix // GSM Mobile: 650-315-8635 // Skype, Y!IM: williambnorton
Re: Internet Video: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the US Peering Ecosystem (v1.2)
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:33:41AM -0800, William B. Norton wrote: Why are folks turning away 10G orders? I forgot to mention a couple other issues that folks brought up: 4) the 100G equipment won't be standardized for a few years yet, so folks will continue to trunk which presents its own challenges over time. well, there's a few important issues here: currently the state-of-the-art is to bundle/balance n*10G. While it's possible to do 40G/n*40G in some places, this is not entirely universal. Given the above constraint, in delivering 10G/n*10G to customers requires some investment in your infrastructure to be able to carry that traffic on your network. The cost difference between sonet/sdh ports compared to 10GE is significant here and continues to be a driving force, imho. Typically in the past, the tier-1 isps have had a larger circuit than the customer edge. eg: I have my OC3, but my provider network is OC12/OC48. Now with everyone having 10G since it is cheap enough, this drives multihoming, routing table size, fib/tcam and other memory consumption, including the corresponding CPU cost. 5) the last mile infrastructure may not be able to/willing to accept the competing video traffic . There was some disagreement among the group I discussed this point with however. A few of the cable operations guys said there is BW and the biz guys don't want to 'give it away' when there is a potential to charge or block (or rather mitigate the traffic as they do now). I suspect this in varies depending on how it's done. Most of the cable folks are dealing with short enough distances as long as the fiber quality is high enough, they could do 10/40G to the neighborhood. The issue becomes the coax side as well as the bandwidth consumption of those analog users. Folks don't upgrade their TV or set-top-box as quickly as they upgrade their computers. There's also a significant cost associated with any change and dealing with those grumpy users if they don't want a STB either. My favorite data point was from Geoff Huston who said that the cable companies are clinging to their 1998 business model as if it were relevent in the world where peer-2-peer for distribution of large objects has already won. He believes that the sophisticated peer-2-peer is encrypting and running over ports noone will shut off, the secure shell ports that are required for VPNs. So give up, be the best dumb pipes you can be I guess. I suspect there's going to be continued seperation at the top as folks see it. Those that can take on these new 10G and n*10G customers and deliver the traffic and those who run into peering and their own network issues in being able to deliver the bits. While 100G will ease some of this, there's still those pesky colo/power issues to deal with. unless you own your own facility, and even if you do, you may have months if not years of slowly evolving upgrades to face. Perhaps there will be some technology that will help us through this, but at the same time, perhaps not, and we'll be getting out the huge rolls of duct tape. It may not be politics that drives partial-transit/paid peering deals, it may just be plain technology. - Jared On 1/10/07, Brandon Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then that wouldn't be enough since the other Tier 1's would need to upgrade their peering infrastructure to handle the larger peering links (n*10G), having to argue to their CFO that they need to do it so that their competitors can support the massive BW customers. Someone will take the business so that traffic is coming regardless, they can either be that peer or be the source with the cash. If they can't do either then they're not in business, I hope they wouldn't ignore it congesting their existing peers (I know...) Then even if the peers all upgraded the peering gear at the same time, the backbones would have to be upgraded as well to get that traffic out of the IXes and out to the eyeball networks. The Internet doesn't scale, turn it off brandon -- // // William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED] // Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison, Equinix // GSM Mobile: 650-315-8635 // Skype, Y!IM: williambnorton -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Marshall Eubanks wrote: Actually, this is true with unicast as well. This can (I think) largely be handled by a fairly moderate amount of Forward Error Correction. Regards Marshall Before streaming meant HTTP-like protocols over port 80 and UDP was actually used, we did some experiments with FEC and discovered that reasonable interleaving (so that two consequtive packets lost could be recovered) and 1:10 FEC resulted in zero-loss environment in all cases we tested. Pete
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Alexander Harrowell writes: For example: France Telecom's consumer ISP in France (Wanadoo) is pushing out lots and lots of WLAN boxes to its subs, which it brands Liveboxes. As well as the router, they also carry their carrier-VoIP and IPTV STB functions. [...] Right, and the French ADSL ecosystem mostly seems to be based on these boxes - Proxad/free.fr has its Freebox, Alice ADSL (Telecom Italia) the AliceBox, etc. All these have SCART (peritelevision) TV plugs in their current incarnations, in addition to the WLAN access points and phone jacks that previous versions already had. Personally I don't like this kind of bundling, and I think being able to choose telephony and video providers indepenently of ISP is better. But the business model seems to work in that market. Note that I don't have any insight or numbers, just noticing that non-technical people (friends and family in France) do seem to be capable of receiving TV over IP (although not over the Internet) - confirming what Simon Lockhart claimed. Of course there are still technical issues such as how to connect two TV sets in different parts of an appartment to a single *box. (Some boxes do support two simultaneous video channels depending on available bandwidth, which is based on the level of unbundling (degroupage) in the area.) As far as I know, the French ISPs use IP multicast for video distribution, although I'm pretty sure that these IP multicast networks are not connected to each other or to the rest of the multicast Internet. -- Simon.
Re: Internet Video: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the US Peering Ecosystem (v1.2)
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:33:41AM -0800, William B. Norton wrote: Why are folks turning away 10G orders? Quite simple... We've found a fair number of networks with no 10GE equipment and no budget to add it. Doubtless, some of these don't have OC192 capacity either. Others have 10G in the offing but are still putting it through acceptance testing and won't sell it for several more months. Others will happily sell you a 10GE circuit but then limit you to some fraction of that circuit because of internal limitations within their nodes. (I've seen this on more than one network.) And in any case, some of these don't have the egress capacity either from the local node to their backbone or to their peers/customers to be able to swallow that kind of traffic anyway. Truth be told, there really are not that many networks out there at present that are capable of accepting a 10G customer who actually intends to USE 10G. And believe it or not, there are still those out there that believe that customers aren't going to be able to pass a full 10G and therefore see no need to offer it at the edge. Currently, for all but the most intensive users, NxGE or NxOC48 still seems to be preferred termination. (Often this is also partly a factor of minimum commits and varying methods of billing.) This is changing but it's happening more slowly than I would like to see. My $0.37 (inflation's a pain) -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
Demand for 10G connections
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, William B. Norton wrote: Why are folks turning away 10G orders? In Hollywood, San Francisco and a few other cities with large concentration of movie/entertainment industries 10G network connections have been sold for at least a year, not necessarily connected to the Internet. Don't we go through this every other network generation? I seem to recall the NSFNET only being able to handle 22Mbps on its T3 (45Mbps) connections for a while. A few years later, another backbone was out of capacity and had to stop selling new connections for several months while it caught up. Later we had the OC12, OC48 bottleneck on switches being used at some exchange points and getting GigE connections was a problem. And so on and so on. We'll have wailing and gnashing of teeth for many months but somehow things will balance out again as technology, equipment and revenue catch up with each other. And then it will start over again with someone wanting 100GE connections, and then 1000GE connections, etc, etc.
Standalone DC power recommendations?
We are going to need to deploy about 800A of -48VDC power equipment in a datacenter that doesn't supply DC power normally. They will give us an three phase AC-power feed that is generator backed. Can anyone point me in the direction of a decent vendor of DC-power plants that are suitable for this size need and/or a ballpark price one would expect to pay for the equipment? Thanks in advance, Deepak
Re: Internet Video: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the US Peering Ecosystem (v1.2)
On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:33 PM, William B. Norton wrote: Why are folks turning away 10G orders? Some of this depends on how much you are willing to pay. The issue is as much 10G orders at today's transit prices as it is the capacity. We're used to paying less per unit for greater capacity, but when we're asking networks to sell capacity in chunks as large as the ones they use to build their backbones, that may simply not work. One other issue is that willingness to sell 10G is one vital competitive distinguisher in an otherwise largely commodity transit market. There have been rumors that older legacy carriers wish to punish more agile competitors for daring to steal 10G customers away from them, in spite of the fact that those older carriers have lots of trouble delivering 10G. - Dan
Re: Internet Video: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the US Peering Ecosystem (v1.2)
One other issue is that willingness to sell 10G is one vital competitive distinguisher in an otherwise largely commodity transit market. There have been rumors that older legacy carriers wish to punish more agile competitors for daring to steal 10G customers away from them, in spite of the fact that those older carriers have lots of trouble delivering 10G. There isn't anything new to that either. I can think of (similar to Sean's story) a time when a backbone had all NxDS3 links in their network and used to be very upset at the idea of selling OC3s instead of NxDS3 (If its good enough for *our* backbone...). Then this network went ATM on Fore systems boxes with handoffs to Cisco routers to leapfrog their competitors... which um, didn't work... Then they reluctantly went POS and better systems since... They are still around today after about 6 name changes. I have no present-day-knowledge of their network or, really, their performance, so I don't want to mention any names. Deepak
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
At 08:58 a.m. 10/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: All H.264? no - H.264 is only the free stuff. Pretty well its all WindowsMedia - because of the DRM capabilities. The rights holders are insisting on that. No DRM = no content. (from the big content houses) The advantage of WM DRM is that smaller players can add DRM to their content quite easily and these folks want to be able to control that space. Even when they are part of an International conglomerate, each country subsidiary seems to get non-DRM'ed material and repackage it (ie add DRM). I understand this is how folks like Sony dish out the rights - on a country basis, so each subsidiary gets to define the business rights (ie play rights) in their own country space. WM DRM has all of this well defined. Rich
Anything going on in Atlanta, GA?
Good evening, I'm currently seeing a routing loop in Atlanta, GA. I've contacted the ISP with no response yet. Just curious if anyone knows if there's something major going on there. My traceroute is below. Tracing route to shs01.mdeinc.ca [207.210.113.61] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms corpnet-rtr01.ba01.mdeinc.ca [10.143.5.1] 2 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms mdei-rci-border-rtr01.ba01.mdeinc.ca [10.99.99.5] 317 ms13 ms15 ms 10.231.36.1 416 ms13 ms13 ms gw01.bawk.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.90.193] 513 ms13 ms16 ms gw01.bawk.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.83.253] 614 ms13 ms13 ms gw01.basp.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.82.6] 715 ms15 ms18 ms gw02.mtnk.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.81.209] 815 ms15 ms15 ms 66.185.80.41 932 ms31 ms32 ms igw01.vaash.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.80.190] 1036 ms37 ms37 ms POS2-1.ar2.DCA3.gblx.net [208.51.239.201] 1151 ms54 ms51 ms NLAYER-COMMUNICATIONS-INC.ge-4-1-0.410.ar4.ATL1.gblx.net [206.41.25.230] 12 267 ms76 ms 122 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 13 *** Request timed out. 1454 ms50 ms56 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 15 *** Request timed out. 1652 ms53 ms53 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 17 *** Request timed out. 1854 ms64 ms51 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 19 *** Request timed out. 2052 ms53 ms52 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 21 *** Request timed out. 2253 ms53 ms54 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 23 *** Request timed out. 2453 ms51 ms54 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 25 *** Request timed out. 2654 ms51 ms56 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 27 *** Request timed out. 2853 ms66 ms56 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 29 *** Request timed out. 3052 ms52 ms56 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] Trace complete. Thanks in advance. Matt Dean, MCP, MCDST, MCPS, MCNPS Cremto Inc. Integrated Technology Consulting 530 Adelaide St. West, Unit 6133 Toronto, Ontario M5V 2K7 Canada (416) 619-0472 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anything going on in Atlanta, GA?
Switch and Data was reporting power issues at 56 Marietta earlier. Don't know if it was isolated to their suite, or more widespread. bill On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 07:51:36PM -0500, Dean, Matt wrote: Good evening, I'm currently seeing a routing loop in Atlanta, GA. I've contacted the ISP with no response yet. Just curious if anyone knows if there's something major going on there. My traceroute is below. Tracing route to shs01.mdeinc.ca [207.210.113.61] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms corpnet-rtr01.ba01.mdeinc.ca [10.143.5.1] 2 5 ms 5 ms 5 ms mdei-rci-border-rtr01.ba01.mdeinc.ca [10.99.99.5] 317 ms13 ms15 ms 10.231.36.1 416 ms13 ms13 ms gw01.bawk.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.90.193] 513 ms13 ms16 ms gw01.bawk.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.83.253] 614 ms13 ms13 ms gw01.basp.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.82.6] 715 ms15 ms18 ms gw02.mtnk.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.81.209] 815 ms15 ms15 ms 66.185.80.41 932 ms31 ms32 ms igw01.vaash.phub.net.cable.rogers.com [66.185.80.190] 1036 ms37 ms37 ms POS2-1.ar2.DCA3.gblx.net [208.51.239.201] 1151 ms54 ms51 ms NLAYER-COMMUNICATIONS-INC.ge-4-1-0.410.ar4.ATL1.gblx.net [206.41.25.230] 12 267 ms76 ms 122 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 13 *** Request timed out. 1454 ms50 ms56 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 15 *** Request timed out. 1652 ms53 ms53 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 17 *** Request timed out. 1854 ms64 ms51 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 19 *** Request timed out. 2052 ms53 ms52 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 21 *** Request timed out. 2253 ms53 ms54 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 23 *** Request timed out. 2453 ms51 ms54 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 25 *** Request timed out. 2654 ms51 ms56 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 27 *** Request timed out. 2853 ms66 ms56 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] 29 *** Request timed out. 3052 ms52 ms56 ms atl-core-a-tgi2-1.gnax.net [209.51.149.105] Trace complete. Thanks in advance. Matt Dean, MCP, MCDST, MCPS, MCNPS Cremto Inc. Integrated Technology Consulting 530 Adelaide St. West, Unit 6133 Toronto, Ontario M5V 2K7 Canada (416) 619-0472 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Anything going on in Atlanta, GA?
Bill, Switch and Data was reporting power issues at 56 Marietta earlier. Don't know if it was isolated to their suite, or more widespread. bill No issues on 2nd, 3rd or 4th floor. Not sure about the 6th (where SD is located.) There are also separate generators in the building for the various tenants. Regards, Randy
i wanna be a kpn peer
route-views.oregon-ix.netsh ip bg 203.10.63.0 BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 2 Paths: (1 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Not advertised to any peer 286 134.222.85.45 from 134.222.85.45 (134.222.85.45) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 286:286 286:3031 286:3809
Re: i wanna be a kpn peer
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Randy Bush wrote: route-views.oregon-ix.netsh ip bg 203.10.63.0 BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 2 do most folks setup route-views peers as a 'standard customer' or are they generally on a special purpose box with special (easy to forget about and screw up) box? -Chris
Re: i wanna be a kpn peer
On Jan 10, 2007, at 10:54 PM, Chris L. Morrow wrote: On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Randy Bush wrote: route-views.oregon-ix.netsh ip bg 203.10.63.0 BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/, version 2 do most folks setup route-views peers as a 'standard customer' or are they generally on a special purpose box with special (easy to forget about and screw up) box? Or even a special purpose box that intentionally gives an unfiltered view? I don't think a spurious prefix directly injected into route-views is proof a network is broken. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
It seems to me that multi-cast is a technical solution for the bandwidth consumption problems precipitated by real-time Internet video broadcast, but it doesn't seem to me that the bulk of current (or even future) Internet video traffic is going to be amenable to distribution via multi-cast - or, at least, separate and apart from whatever happens with multi-cast, a huge and growing volume of video traffic will be flowing over the 'net... I don't think consumers are going to accept having to wait for a scheduled broadcast of whatever piece of video content they want to view - at least if the alternative is being able to download and watch it nearly immediately. That said, for the most popular content with the widest audience, scheduled multi-cast makes sense... especially when the alternative is waiting for a large download to finish - contrawise, it doesn't seem reasonable to be constantly multi-casting *every* piece of video content anyone might ever want to watch (that in itself would consume an insane amount of bandwidth). How many pieces of video content are there on YouTube? How many more can we expect to emerge over the next decade, given the ever decreasing cost of entry for reasonably decent video production? All of which, to me, leaves the fundamental issue of how the upsurge in traffic is going to be handled left unresolved. Thomas Simon Lockhart wrote: On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that the broadcast model for streaming content is so successful, why would you want to use the Internet for it? What is the benefit? How many channels can you get on your (terrestrial) broadcast receiver? If you want more, your choices are satellite or cable. To get cable, you need to be in a cable area. To get satellite, you need to stick a dish on the side of your house, which you may not want to do, or may not be allowed to do. With IPTV, you just need a phoneline (and be close enough to the exchange/CO to get decent xDSL rate). In the UK, I'm already delivering 40+ channels over IPTV (over inter-provider multicast, to any UK ISP that wants it). Simon -- Thomas Leavitt - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 831-295-3917 (cell) *** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA *** begin:vcard fn:Thomas Leavitt n:Leavitt;Thomas org:Godmoma's Forge, LLC adr:Suite B;;916 Soquel Ave.;Santa Cruz;CA;95062;United States email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Systems and Network Consultant tel;fax:831-469-3382 tel;cell:831-295-3917 url:http://www.godmomasforge.com/ version:2.1 end:vcard
Fwd: [routing-wg]New Document Available: RIPE-399
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I hadn't seen any mention of this on the list today, so I figured I would mention it. I finally got a few free minutes to review this document this evening and I think it is a really good community resource. FYI, - - ferg [forwarded message] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [routing-wg]New Document Available: RIPE-399 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:57:36 +0100 New RIPE Document Announcement - -- A new document is available from the RIPE Document store. Ref:ripe-399 Title: RIPE Routing Working Group Recommendations on Route Aggregation Author: Philip Smith, Rob Evans, Mike Hughes Format: PDF= 89, 997 Date: December 2006 Short content description - - This document discusses the need for aggregation of prefixes on the Internet today, and recommends good working practices for Internet Service Providers and other Autonomous Networks connected to the Internet. Accessing the RIPE Document Store - - You can access this RIPE document at: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-399.html [snip] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.2 (Build 4075) wj8DBQFFpbr7q1pz9mNUZTMRAoZ8AJ4gbdH1fo8OD/KaRToztqpcbp+E3QCdEeZn FtwMbt3qzzAs485WlPvJLwk= =jcbf -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: i wanna be a kpn peer
I don't think a spurious prefix directly injected into route-views is proof a network is broken. we've had this discussion 42 times. it is not proof of anything and no one has said it is. but if it was one of my areas of responsibility leaking something strange, i sure would not mind folk mentioning it here. in fact, i would be greatful. randy
Re: i wanna be a kpn peer
On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Randy Bush wrote: I don't think a spurious prefix directly injected into route-views is proof a network is broken. we've had this discussion 42 times. it is not proof of anything and no one has said it is. but if it was one of my areas of responsibility leaking something strange, i sure would not mind folk mentioning it here. in fact, i would be greatful. It is not proof. No one said it was. And no one said you said it was. :) That said, I would be grateful if someone showed me I screwed up too - in private. In public, I'm not so sure. Especially if someone only -thought- I screwed up. One could argue that it is difficult to reach the proper people privately (although noc@ might be a start, or iNOC-DBA, or ...). One could also argue that public notification is better than no notification. But then one would might want to mention that private channels had been exhausted in one's public notification. Anyway, this one is sorry if that one thought one was being curmudgeonly. :) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote: It seems to me that multi-cast is a technical solution for the bandwidth consumption problems precipitated by real-time Internet video broadcast, but it doesn't seem to me that the bulk of current (or even future) Internet video traffic is going to be amenable to distribution via multi-cast - or, at least, separate and apart from whatever happens with multi-cast, a huge and growing volume of video traffic will be flowing over the 'net... I would fully agree with this. I don't think consumers are going to accept having to wait for a scheduled broadcast of whatever piece of video content they want to view - at least if the alternative is being able to download and watch it nearly That's the pull model. The push model will also exist. Both will make money. immediately. That said, for the most popular content with the widest audience, scheduled multi-cast makes sense... especially when the alternative is waiting for a large download to finish - contrawise, it doesn't seem reasonable to be constantly multi- casting *every* piece of video content anyone might ever want to watch (that in itself would consume an insane amount of bandwidth). How many pieces of video content are there on YouTube? How many more can we expect to emerge over the next decade, given the ever decreasing cost of entry for reasonably decent video production? Lots. Remember, of course, Sturgeon's law. But, lots. If you want numbers, 10^4 channels, billions of pieces of uncommercial content, and millions of pieces of commercial content. All of which, to me, leaves the fundamental issue of how the upsurge in traffic is going to be handled left unresolved. I think that technically, we have a pretty good idea how. I think that the real fundamental question is whose business models will allow them to make a profit from this upsurge. Thomas Regards Marshall Simon Lockhart wrote: On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that the broadcast model for streaming content is so successful, why would you want to use the Internet for it? What is the benefit? How many channels can you get on your (terrestrial) broadcast receiver? If you want more, your choices are satellite or cable. To get cable, you need to be in a cable area. To get satellite, you need to stick a dish on the side of your house, which you may not want to do, or may not be allowed to do. With IPTV, you just need a phoneline (and be close enough to the exchange/CO to get decent xDSL rate). In the UK, I'm already delivering 40+ channels over IPTV (over inter-provider multicast, to any UK ISP that wants it). Simon -- Thomas Leavitt - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 831-295-3917 (cell) *** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA *** thomas.vcf
