RE: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
Maybe we should try poetry, Human, you tied the soul, You will not behold joy if you break down that wall, So why the leaving beam is calling you, Brick by brick, slowly one by one, ... hoping to at least catch a glimpse of ray. Translated from: Kingmaker (Life ... in a nest of copper) By: Rikin adam -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:07 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet On May 15, 2013, at 09:59 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-05-15 09:02, Brett Frankenberger wrote: So it's only on the Internet if it uses a provider's transit capacity? All of this is leading me to the following conclusion: If we, as network engineers can't agree on the nature and definition of the internet, how can we possibly expect the media to understand it? Owen
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: Netflix's policy does require a minimum amount of traffic before an ISP can deploy an Open Connect appliance. So smaller ISPs are at a disadvantage if they are located in a city without CDN presence. To be clear - the purpose of this policy is to ensure that people who deploy appliances use them in the best way possible for their network. Anything less than the minimum amount of traffic and the appliance uses more bandwidth to fill than serve and you end up in a race of diminishing returns. We're always happy to try to find the best solution for any network, even those too small for an OCA. For more info see http://openconnect.netflix.com Regards, -Dave
RE: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On May 14, 2013, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: But when traffic from a cahe server flows directly into an ISP's intranet to end users, it doesn't really make use of the Internet nor does it cost the ISP transit capacity. Compare this to a small ISP in a city where there are no cache servers. Reaching netfix involves using paid transit to reach the nearest point where Netflix has a cache server. So traffic truly travels on the internet. We're a small ISP and we reach lot of content via peering just fine. Lot of these contents that you speak of (Netflix, Akamai, et al) have open peering policies and are present in more exchange points than anybody else. james
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 09:14:56PM -0400, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: On 13-05-14 20:55, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Since when is peering not part of the Internet? Yes, one car argue that an device with an IP address routable from the internet is part of the internet. But when traffic from a cahe server flows directly into an ISP's intranet to end users, it doesn't really make use of the Internet nor does it cost the ISP transit capacity. So it's only on the Internet if it uses a provider's transit capacity? So if ISP1 and ISP2 are customers of ISP3 (and ISP3 is the only provider-to-provider connection for ISP1 and ISP2), then traffic between a customer of ISP1 and a customer of ISP2 is on the Internet? What if ISP1 and ISP2 then setup a private peering connection? Is traffic between ISP1 and ISP2 still on the Internet, or is that reserved for traffic over paid transit? And if that's still on the Internet, what happens if ISP1 then buys IPS2? Does the traffic between them cease to be on the Internet now that it's the same company? And, if you define on the Internet to mean goes over paid transit, then the only traffic that is on the Internet is traffic to ISPs who have paid transit. Traffic between end customers of two Tier 1 providers (defined as providers who don't pay for any transit for the purposes of this message) would never be on the Internet? (I assume transit, if that's your threshold, is transit paid for by a provider. End user connections are essentially paid transit, even though it's not typically called that, especially at the lower end.) The point is: I don't think you definition works. Could post exactly what your definition of on the Internet is (as opposed to just enumerating examples of things you think are on the internet and things you think are not on the Internet)? -- Brett
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On 13-05-15 06:24, ja...@towardex.com wrote: We're a small ISP and we reach lot of content via peering just fine. Lot of these contents that you speak of (Netflix, Akamai, et al) have open peering policies and are present in more exchange points than anybody else. Not all ISPs are fortunate enough to be in a town where there is an active exchange with Netflix/Akamai/Google presence. For instance, Montréal just recently oopened a peering exchange. While this will eventually allow local ISPs to peer with the big content providers, until this happens, small ISPs have to get that content via paid transit links. Toronto has local content available via peering so smaller ISPs can benefit from that. But not every city has that chance. Netflix's policy does require a minimum amount of traffic before an ISP can deploy an Open Connect appliance. So smaller ISPs are at a disadvantage if they are located in a city without CDN presence.
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-05-15 06:24, ja...@towardex.com wrote: We're a small ISP and we reach lot of content via peering just fine. Lot of these contents that you speak of (Netflix, Akamai, et al) have open peering policies and are present in more exchange points than anybody else. Not all ISPs are fortunate enough to be in a town where there is an active exchange with Netflix/Akamai/Google presence. For instance, Montréal just recently oopened a peering exchange. While this will eventually allow local ISPs to peer with the big content providers, until this happens, small ISPs have to get that content via paid transit links. or via some cooperative arrangement with another IX participant, no? Toronto has local content available via peering so smaller ISPs can benefit from that. But not every city has that chance. Netflix's policy does require a minimum amount of traffic before an ISP can deploy an Open Connect appliance. So smaller ISPs are at a disadvantage if they are located in a city without CDN presence.
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On 13-05-15 09:02, Brett Frankenberger wrote: So it's only on the Internet if it uses a provider's transit capacity? I made the statement in a context of the internet is crumbling under the Netflix load. There have been many media reports over the years of the internet unable to cope with the explosion of traffic. When a content provider delivers content at an ISP's doorstep, it basically bypasses the internet (the big cloud). I am fully aware that it is still technically the internet. But the load is not on the internet but rathers localised to particular individual networks within the internet. The point here is that the internet (as a whole) has adapted to the likes of Netflix and Youtube who are able to deliver huge amounts of data without the internet crumbling.
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-05-15 09:02, Brett Frankenberger wrote: So it's only on the Internet if it uses a provider's transit capacity? I made the statement in a context of the internet is crumbling under the Netflix load. There have been many media reports over the years of is it? it seems ok so far... the internet unable to cope with the explosion of traffic. 'internet doom, news at 11' ? i don't think there's as much of a problem as news folk want us all to believe. I also bet that as problems arise, folk route around them with better/closer/cheaper peering, no?
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:46:36 -0400, Jean-Francois Mezei said: Not all ISPs are fortunate enough to be in a town where there is an active exchange with Netflix/Akamai/Google presence. For instance, Montréal just recently oopened a peering exchange. While this will eventually allow local ISPs to peer with the big content providers, until this happens, small ISPs have to get that content via paid transit links. AS1312 isn't particularly large (2 /16s, 30K students, 8K fac/staff), and Akamai was more than willing to drop a cache unit in our machine room. And Google was happy to meet us at the upstream end of our link to the outside world - but I half-suspect that was just because we make their IPv6 stats look good :) pgpM7hKTqpYzr.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
Not all ISPs are fortunate enough to be in a town where there is an active exchange with Netflix/Akamai/Google presence. For instance, Montréal just recently oopened a peering exchange. While this will eventually allow local ISPs to peer with the big content providers, until this happens, small ISPs have to get that content via paid transit links. lolwut? Montreal isn't a small town, just not developed on peering side. What's the cost of upgrading your IP transit in Montreal or getting a 10G wave to Toronto for peering w/ content nowadays? Not very much. james
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On May 15, 2013, at 09:59 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-05-15 09:02, Brett Frankenberger wrote: So it's only on the Internet if it uses a provider's transit capacity? All of this is leading me to the following conclusion: If we, as network engineers can't agree on the nature and definition of the internet, how can we possibly expect the media to understand it? Owen
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On 13-05-15 14:07, Owen DeLong wrote: If we, as network engineers can't agree on the nature and definition of the internet, how can we possibly expect the media to understand it? When someone cuts a cable in the meditarenean, the media doesn't say the internet has crawled to a snail's pace, it says internet connections in the middle east are very slow. If DNS servers at Comcast fail, one doesn't say the internet has suffered a failure. Generally , if one uses the expression the internet, it would generally mean the generic term which encompasses the whole internet. So you can state Syria is disconnected from the internet. If root servers went down around the world, then one could state that the internet has suffered a failure.
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On 13-05-14 13:06, Jay Ashworth wrote: http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/netflix-puts-even-more-strain-on-the-internet-1200480561/ they suggest that Akamai and other ISP-side caching is either not affecting these numbers and their pertinence to the backbone at all, or not much. This is from a Sandvine press release. Sandvine measures traffic at the last mile, so it doesn't really know whether a Netflix stream is coming from a local caching server within the carrier's LAN, from a caching server that is peering with the carrier, or via the real internet. In the case of a large ISP with a Netflix cache server accessible locally, (either in-house, or via peering at a local carrier hotel), the traffic doesn't really travel on the internet. But for smaller ISPs, the traffic will travel on the internet between the nearest cache server and their facilities. Because of caching, the load on the actual internet won't increase as much as the amoount streamed onto last mile infrastructure.
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-05-14 13:06, Jay Ashworth wrote: http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/netflix-puts-even-more-strain-on-the-internet-1200480561/ they suggest that Akamai and other ISP-side caching is either not affecting these numbers and their pertinence to the backbone at all, or not much. This is from a Sandvine press release. Sandvine measures traffic at the last mile, so it doesn't really know whether a Netflix stream is coming from a local caching server within the carrier's LAN, from a caching server that is peering with the carrier, or via the real internet. can't the routing data on the network tell them some of this? or even routing data collected from like 'routeviews'? they don't even really need 'live' data as much as daily snapshots to say: Yea, that network is 3 as-hops away -- it's across the backbone. sounds like lazy research... In the case of a large ISP with a Netflix cache server accessible locally, (either in-house, or via peering at a local carrier hotel), the traffic doesn't really travel on the internet. and that fact ought to be visible in the local routing system and/or global system. But for smaller ISPs, the traffic will travel on the internet between the nearest cache server and their facilities. Because of caching, the load on the actual internet won't increase as much as the amoount streamed onto last mile infrastructure. one hopes. (providing cache-hit is above a few percent) -chris
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On May 14, 2013, at 13:06 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Or I don't. Which is not completely impossible. In this piece: http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/netflix-puts-even-more-strain-on-the-internet-1200480561/ they suggest that Akamai and other ISP-side caching is either not affecting these numbers and their pertinence to the backbone at all, or not much. Did they miss something? or did I? I don't see the word backbone in there, other than in the comments. Your DSL line is part of the Internet, and doing more traffic puts more strain (FSVO strain) on that link, even if the server is colocated with the cable head end. So I don't see the problem here. But then, maybe I'm the one who is confused? :) -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On May 14, 2013, at 15:53 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-05-14 13:06, Jay Ashworth wrote: http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/netflix-puts-even-more-strain-on-the-internet-1200480561/ they suggest that Akamai and other ISP-side caching is either not affecting these numbers and their pertinence to the backbone at all, or not much. This is from a Sandvine press release. Sandvine measures traffic at the last mile, so it doesn't really know whether a Netflix stream is coming from a local caching server within the carrier's LAN, from a caching server that is peering with the carrier, or via the real internet. In the case of a large ISP with a Netflix cache server accessible locally, (either in-house, or via peering at a local carrier hotel), the traffic doesn't really travel on the internet. Since when is peering not part of the Internet? Since when is even on-net caches not part of the Internet? I always thought if I am on the Internet, anything I ping is on the Internet. (I am intentionally ignoring things like split tunnel VPN nodes.) Perhaps you think of the Internet as the tier ones or something? But for smaller ISPs, the traffic will travel on the internet between the nearest cache server and their facilities. I guess you assume smaller ISPs don't peer? Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you, 100s if not 1000s of times. Still confused about this whole notion, though. Perhaps you can clarify? Because of caching, the load on the actual internet won't increase as much as the amoount streamed onto last mile infrastructure. Uh I give up. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On 13-05-14 20:55, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Since when is peering not part of the Internet? Yes, one car argue that an device with an IP address routable from the internet is part of the internet. But when traffic from a cahe server flows directly into an ISP's intranet to end users, it doesn't really make use of the Internet nor does it cost the ISP transit capacity. Compare this to a small ISP in a city where there are no cache servers. Reaching netfix involves using paid transit to reach the nearest point where Netflix has a cache server. So traffic truly travels on the internet.
Re: Variety, On The Media, don't understand the Internet
On May 14, 2013, at 21:14 , Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: On 13-05-14 20:55, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Since when is peering not part of the Internet? Yes, one car argue that an device with an IP address routable from the internet is part of the internet. Can argue? How would you define the Internet? But when traffic from a cahe server flows directly into an ISP's intranet to end users, it doesn't really make use of the Internet nor does it cost the ISP transit capacity. Transit capacity != Internet. Plus you said even peering wasn't the Internet. Compare this to a small ISP in a city where there are no cache servers. Reaching netfix involves using paid transit to reach the nearest point where Netflix has a cache server. So traffic truly travels on the internet. Truly? You have interesting definitions. I think you are trying to say small ISPs have to pay to access $CONTENT, big ones do not. This is objectively false-to-fact. If you are trying to say scale makes some things easier, then I'm sure most people would agree. But trying to define the Internet as transit capacity, or saying small ISPs can't peer, or anything of the sort is silly. -- TTFN, patrick
