Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
If the content senders do not want this dipping and levelling off, then they will have to foot the bill for the network capacity. That's kind of the funniest thing I've seen today, it sounds so much like an Ed Whitacre. Then Ed learns that the people he'd like to charge for the privilege of using his pipes are already paying for pipes. If they really were paying for pipes, there would be no issue. The reason there is an issue is because network operators have been assuming that consumers, and content senders, would not use 100% of the access link capacity through the ISP's core network. When you assume any kind of overbooking then you are taking the risk that you have underpriced the service. The ideas people are talking about, relating to pumping lots of video to every end user, are fundamentally at odds with this overbooking model. The risk level has change from one in 10,000 to one in ten or one in five. But today, content production is cheap, and competition has driven the cost of content down to zero. Right, that's a problem I'm seeing too. Unfortunately, the content owners still think that content is king and that they are sitting on a gold mine. They fail to see that they are only raking in revenues because they spend an awful lot of money on marketing their content. And the market is now so diverse (YouTube, indie bands, immigrant communities) that nobody can get anywhere close to 100% share. The long tail seems to be getting a bigger share of the overall market. Host the video on your TiVo, or your PC, and take advantage of your existing bandwidth. (There are obvious non- self-hosted models already available, I'm not focusing on them, but they would work too) Not a bad idea if the asymmetry in ADSL is not too small. But this all goes away if we really do get the kind of distributed data centers that I envision, where most business premises convert their machine rooms into generic compute/storage arrays. I should point out that the enterprise world is moving this way, not just Google/Amazon/Yahoo. For instance, many companies are moving applications onto virtual machines that are hosted on relatively generic compute arrays, with storage all in SANs. VMWare has a big chunk of this market but XEN based solutions with their ability to migrate running virtual machines, are also in use. And since a lot of enterprise software is built with Java, clustering software like Terracotta makes it possible to build a compute array with several JVM's per core and scale applications with a lot less fuss than traditional cluster operating systems. Since most ISPs are now owned by telcos and since most telcos have lots of strategically located buildings with empty space caused by physical shrinkage of switching equipment, you would think that everybody on this list would be thinking about how to integrate all these data center pods into their networks. So what I'm thinking of is a device that is doing the equivalent of being a personal video assistant on the Internet. And I believe it is coming. Something that's capable of searching out and speculatively downloading the things it thinks you might be interested in. Not some techie's cobbled together PC with BitTorrent and HDMI outputs. Speculative downloading is the key here, and I believe that cobbled together boxes will end up doing the same thing. However, this means that any given content file will be going to a much larger number of endpoints, which is something that P2P handles quite well. P2P software is a form of multicast as is a CDN (Content Delivery Network) like Akamai. Just because IP Multicast is built into the routers, does not make it the best way to multicast content. Given that widespread IP multicast will *NOT* happen without ISP investment and that it potentially impacts every router in the network, I think it has a disadvantage compared with P2P or systems which rely on a few middleboxes strategically places, such as caching proxies. The hardware specifics of this is getting a bit off-topic, at least for this list. Do we agree that there's a potential model in the future where video may be speculatively fetched off the Internet and then stored for possible viewing, and if so, can we refocus a bit on that? I can only see this speculative fetching if it is properly implemented to minimize its impact on the network. The idea of millions of unicast streams or FTP downloads in one big exaflood, will kill speculative fetching. If the content senders create an exaflood, then the audience will not get the kind of experience that they expect, and will go elsewhere. We had this experience recently in the UK when they opened a new terminal at Heathrow airport and British-Airways moved operations to T5 overnight. The exaflood of luggage was too much for the system, and it has taken weeks to get to a level of service that people still consider bad service but bearable. They had
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Just an ad used to illustrate the low cost and ease of use. The fact that it's quicktime also made me realize it's also ipods, iphones/wifi, and that Apple has web libraries ready for web site development on their darwin boxes. Also, I would imagine this device could easily be cross connected and multicasted into each access router so that the only bandwidth used is that bandwidth being paid for by customer or QoS unicast streams feeding an MCU. Rambling now, but happy to answer your question. -Original Message- From: Marc Manthey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:07 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 ...is the first H.264 encoder .. designed by specifically for ... environments. It natively supports the RTSP streaming media protocol. can stream directly to . hi marc so your oskar can rtsp multicast stream over ipv6 and quicktime not , or was this just an ad ? cheers Marc -- Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED] blog : http://www.let.de ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org Klarmachen zum Ändern! http://www.piratenpartei-koeln.de/ ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Here is a spec sheet : http://goamt.radicalwebs.com/images/products/ds_OSCAR_1106.pdf Regards Marshall On Apr 23, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Williams, Marc wrote: Just an ad used to illustrate the low cost and ease of use. The fact that it's quicktime also made me realize it's also ipods, iphones/wifi, and that Apple has web libraries ready for web site development on their darwin boxes. Also, I would imagine this device could easily be cross connected and multicasted into each access router so that the only bandwidth used is that bandwidth being paid for by customer or QoS unicast streams feeding an MCU. Rambling now, but happy to answer your question. -Original Message- From: Marc Manthey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:07 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 ...is the first H.264 encoder .. designed by specifically for ... environments. It natively supports the RTSP streaming media protocol. can stream directly to . hi marc so your oskar can rtsp multicast stream over ipv6 and quicktime not , or was this just an ad ? cheers Marc -- Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED] blog : http://www.let.de ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org Klarmachen zum Ändern! http://www.piratenpartei-koeln.de/ ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD is around 4-6Mbps, MPEG4 SD is around 2-4Mbps, MPEG4 HD is anywhere from 8 to 20Mbps, depending on how much wow factor the broadcaster is trying to give. Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. So why would anyone plug an ATSC feed directly into the Internet? Are there any devices that can play it other than a TV set? Why wouldn't a video services company transcode it to MPEG4 and transmit that? I can see that some cable/DSL companies might transmit ATSC to subscribers but they would also operate local receivers so that the traffic never touches their core. Rather like what a cable company does today with TV receivers in their head ends. All this talk of exafloods seems to ignore the basic economics of IP networks. No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. And nobody is going to stick IP multicast (and multicast peering) in the core just to deal with video streams to people who leave their TV on all day whether they are at home or not. At best you will see IP multicast on a city-wide basis in a single ISP's network. Also note that IP multicast only works for live broadcast TV. In today's world there isn't much of that except for news. Everything else is prerecorded and thus it COULD be transmitted at any time. IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000 unique streams. In the 1960's it was reasonable to think that you could deliver the same video to all consumers because everybody was the same in one big melting pot. But that day is long gone. On the other hand, P2P software could be leveraged to download video files during off-peak hours on the network. All it takes is some cooperation between P2P software developers and ISPs so that you have P2P clients which can be told to lay off during peak hours, or when they want something from the other side of a congested peering circuit. Better yet, the ISP's P2P manager could arrange for one full copy of that file to get across the congested peering circuit during the time period most favorable for that single circuit, then distribute elsewhere. --Michael Dillon As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is *NOT* video, it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
It's certainly not reasonable to assume the same video goes to all consumers, but on the other hand, there *is* plenty of video that goes to a *lot* of consumers. I don't really need my own personal unicast copy of the bits that make up an episode of BSG or whatever. I would hope that the future has even more tivo-like devices at the consumer edge that can take advantage of the right (desired) bits whenever they are available. A single box that can take bits off the bird or cable tv when what it wants is found there or request over IP when it needs to doesn't seem like rocket science... -dorn On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD is around 4-6Mbps, MPEG4 SD is around 2-4Mbps, MPEG4 HD is anywhere from 8 to 20Mbps, depending on how much wow factor the broadcaster is trying to give. Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. So why would anyone plug an ATSC feed directly into the Internet? Are there any devices that can play it other than a TV set? Why wouldn't a video services company transcode it to MPEG4 and transmit that? I can see that some cable/DSL companies might transmit ATSC to subscribers but they would also operate local receivers so that the traffic never touches their core. Rather like what a cable company does today with TV receivers in their head ends. All this talk of exafloods seems to ignore the basic economics of IP networks. No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. And nobody is going to stick IP multicast (and multicast peering) in the core just to deal with video streams to people who leave their TV on all day whether they are at home or not. At best you will see IP multicast on a city-wide basis in a single ISP's network. Also note that IP multicast only works for live broadcast TV. In today's world there isn't much of that except for news. Everything else is prerecorded and thus it COULD be transmitted at any time. IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000 unique streams. In the 1960's it was reasonable to think that you could deliver the same video to all consumers because everybody was the same in one big melting pot. But that day is long gone. On the other hand, P2P software could be leveraged to download video files during off-peak hours on the network. All it takes is some cooperation between P2P software developers and ISPs so that you have P2P clients which can be told to lay off during peak hours, or when they want something from the other side of a congested peering circuit. Better yet, the ISP's P2P manager could arrange for one full copy of that file to get across the congested peering circuit during the time period most favorable for that single circuit, then distribute elsewhere. --Michael Dillon As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is *NOT* video, it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
So why would anyone plug an ATSC feed directly into the Internet? Because we can. One day ISPs might do multicast and it might become cheap enough to deliver to the home. If we don't then they probably will never bother fixing those two problems I've been multicasting the BBCs channels in the UK since 2004. The full rate are mostly used by NOCs with our news on their projectors, we have lower rate h264, WM and Real for people testing multicast over current ADSL. The aim is by 2012 to be able to do all our Olympics sports in HD (a channel per simultaneous event rather than the usual just one with highlights of each) something we can't do on DTT (= ATSC) due to lack of spectrum (there's enough but it's being sold for non TV use after analogue switch off) Are there any devices that can play it other than a TV set? Sure, STB for TV and VLC etc for most OS. It's trivial No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. That's because they don't have a viable business model (unlimited use...). Cable companies are moving to IP, they already carry it from their core to the home just the transport is changing. And nobody is going to stick IP multicast (and multicast peering) in the core just to deal with video streams to people who leave their TV on all day whether they are at home or not. When people do it unicast regardless then not doing multicast is silly At best you will see IP multicast on a city-wide basis in a single ISP's network. Unlikely, too much infrastructure and not all content is available locally Also note that IP multicast only works for live broadcast TV. See Sky Movies for a simulation of multicast VoD IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000 unique streams. True but the 1000 watching BBC1 may as well be multicast, at least you save a bit. In the 1960's it was reasonable to think that you could deliver the same video to all consumers because everybody was the same in one big melting pot. But that day is long gone. Evidence is a lot of people still like to vegetate in front of a tv rather than hunt their content. Once they're all dead we'll find out if linear TV is still viable, by then IPv6 roll out may have completed too. On the other hand, P2P software could be leveraged to download video files during off-peak hours on the network. Sure but P2P isn't a requirement for that and currently saves you no money (UK ADSL wholesale model) over unicast. If people are taking random content you won't be able to predict and send it in advance. If you can predict then you can multicast it and save some transport cost vs P2P/unicast Better yet, the ISP's P2P manager could arrange for one full copy of that file to get across the congested peering circuit during the time period most favorable for that single circuit, then distribute elsewhere. Or they could just run an http cache and save a lot more traffic and not have to rely on P2P apps playing nicely. Apologies for length, just no seemed too rude brandon ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:35 PM, Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote: I've found it interesting that those who do Internet TV (re)define HD in a way that no one would consider HD anymore except the provider. =) The FCC did not appear to set a bit rate specification for HD Television. The ATSC standard (A-53 part 4) specifies aspect ratios and pixel formats and frame rates, but not bit rates. So AFAICT, no redefinition is necessary. If you are doing (say) 720 x 1280 at 30 fps, you can call it HD, regardless of your bit rate. If you can find somewhere where the standard says otherwise, I would like to know about it. In the news recently has been some complaints about Comcast's HD TV. Comcast has been (selectively) fitting 3 MPEG-2 HD streams in a 6 MHz carrier (38 Mbps = 12.6 Mbps) and customers aren't happy with that. I'm not sure how the average consumer will see 1.5 Mbps for HD video as sufficient unless it's QVGA. Well, not with a 15+ year old standard like MPEG-2. (And, of course, HD is a set of pixel formats that specifically does not include QVGA.) I have had video professionals go wow at H.264 dual pass 720 p encodings at 2 Mbps, so it can be done. The real question is, how often do you see artifacts ? And, how much does the user care ? Modern encodings at these bit rates tend to provide very good encodings of static scenes. As the on-screen action increases, so does the likelihood of artifacts, so selection of bit rate depends I think on user expectations and the typical content being down. (As an aside, I see lots of artifacts on my at-home Cable HD, but I don't know their bandwidth allocation.) Regards Marshall Frank -Original Message- From: Alex Thurlow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:26 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 snip I'm going to have to say that that's much higher than we're actually going to see. You have to remember that there's not a ton of compression going on in that. We're looking to start pushing HD video online, and our intial tests show that 1.5Mbps is plenty to push HD resolutions of video online. We won't necessarily be doing 60 fps or full quality audio, but HD doesn't actually define exactly what it's going to be. Look at the HD offerings online today and I think you'll find that they're mostly 1-1.5 Mbps. TV will stay much higher quality than that, but if people are watching from their PCs, I think you'll see much more compression going on, given that the hardware processing it has a lot more horsepower. -- Alex Thurlow Technical Director Blastro Networks ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
All this talk of exafloods seems to ignore the basic economics of IP networks. No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. And nobody is going to stick IP multicast (and multicast peering) in the core just to deal with video streams to people who leave their TV on all day whether they are at home or not. The floor is littered with the discarded husks of policies about what ISP's are going to allow or disallow. No servers, no connection sharing, web browsing only, no voip, etc. These typically last only as long as the errant assumptions upon which they're based remain somewhat viable. For example, when NAT gateways and Internet Connection Sharing became widely available, trying to prohibit connection sharing went by the wayside. 8GB/day is less than a single megabit per second, and with ISP's selling ultra high speed connections (we're now able to get 7 or 15Mbps), an ISP might find it difficult to defend why they're selling a premium 15Mbps service on which a user can't get 1/15th of that. At best you will see IP multicast on a city-wide basis in a single ISP's network. Also note that IP multicast only works for live broadcast TV. In today's world there isn't much of that except for news. Huh? Why does IP multicast only work for that? Everything else is prerecorded and thus it COULD be transmitted at any time. IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000 unique streams. Yes, that's potentially a problem. That doesn't mean that multicast can not be leveraged to handle prerecorded material, but it does suggest that you could really use a TiVo-like device to make best use. A fundamental change away from live broadcast and streaming out a show in 1:1 realtime, to a model where everything is spooled onto the local TiVo, and then watched at a user's convenience. We don't have the capacity at the moment to really deal with 1000 subs all pulling in 1000 unique streams, but the likelihood is that we're not going to see that for some time - if ever. What seems more likely is that we'll see an evolution of more specialized offerings, possibly supplementing or even eventually replacing the tiered channel package offerings of your typical cable company, since it's pretty clear that a-la-carte channel selection isn't likely to happen soon. That may allow some less popular channels to come into being. I happen to like holding up SciFi as an example, because their current operations are significantly different than originally conceived, and they're now producing significant quantities of their own original material. It's possible that we could see a much larger number of these sorts of ventures (which would terrify legacy television networks even further). The biggest challenge that I would expect from a network point of view is the potential for vast amounts of decentralization. For example, there's low-key stuff such as the Star Trek: Hidden Frontier series of fanfic- based video projects. There are almost certainly enough fans out there that you'd see a small surge in viewership if the material was more readily accessible (read that as: automatically downloaded to your TiVo). That could encourage others to do the same in more quantity. These are all low-volume data sources, and yet taken as a whole, they could represent a fairly difficult problem were everyone to be doing it. It is not just tech geeks that are going to be able produce video, as the stuff becomes more accessible (see: YouTube), we may see stuff like mini soap operas, home garden shows, local sporting events, local politics, etc. I'm envisioning a scenario where we may find that there are a few tens of thousands of PTA meetings each being uploaded routinely onto the home PC's of whoever recorded the local meeting, and then made available to the small number of interested parties who might then watch, where (0N20). If that kind of thing happens, then we're going to find that there's a large range of projects that have potential viewership landing anywhere between this example and that of the specialty broadcast cable channels, and the question that is relevant to network operators is whether there's a way to guide this sort of thing towards models which are less harmful to the network. I don't pretend to have the answers to this, but I do feel reasonably certain that the success of YouTube is not a fluke, and that we're going to see more, not less, of this sort of thing. As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is *NOT* video, it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. You can go compare the relative successes of Yahoo! Finance and YouTube. While it might be nice to multicast that sort of data, it's a relative trickle of data, and I'll bet that the majority of users have not only not visited a market data
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Joe Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is *NOT* video, it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc. You can go compare the relative successes of Yahoo! Finance and YouTube. While it might be nice to multicast that sort of data, it's a relative trickle of data, and I'll bet that the majority of users have not only not visited a market data site this week, but have actually never done so. As if most financial (and other mega-dataset) data was on consumer Web sites. Think pricing feeds off stock exchange back-office systems. Oh, you got my point. Good. :-) This isn't a killer application for IP multicast, at least not on the public Internet. High volume bits that are not busily traversing a hundred thousand last-mile residential connections are probably not the bits that are going to pose a serious challenge for network operators, or at least, that's my take on things. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Apr 22, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Marc Manthey wrote: Am 22.04.2008 um 16:05 schrieb Bruce Curtis: p2p isn't the only way to deliver content overnight, content could also be delivered via multicast overnight. http://www.intercast.com/Eng/Index.asp http://kazam.com/Eng/About/About.jsp hmm sorry i did not get it IMHO multicast ist uselese for VOD , correct ? marc Michael said the same thing Also note that IP multicast only works for live broadcast TV. and then mentioned that p2p could be used to download content during off-peak hours. Kazam is a beta test that uses Intercast's technology to download content overnight to a users PC via multicast. My point was p2p isn't the only way to deliver content overnight, multicast could also be used to do that, and in fact at least one company is exploring that option. The example seemed to fit in well with the other examples in the the thread that mentioned TiVo type devices recording content for later viewing on demand. I agree that multicast can be used for live TV and others have mentioned the multicasting of the BBC and www.ostn.tv is another example of live multicasting. However since TiVo type devices today record broadcast content for later viewing on demand there could certainly be devices that record multicast content for later viewing on demand. --- Bruce Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Certified NetAnalyst II701-231-8527 North Dakota State University ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000 unique streams. Yes, that's potentially a problem. That doesn't mean that multicast can not be leveraged to handle prerecorded material, but it does suggest that you could really use a TiVo-like device to make best use. You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing clients? Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large quantities of television on? Especially now that it's pretty common to have large, flat screen TV's, and watching TV even on a 24 monitor feels like a throwback to the '80's? How about the one that's shaped like a TiVo and has a built-in remote control, sane operating software, can be readily purchased and set up by a non-techie, and is known to work well? I remember all the fuss about how people would be making phone calls using VoIP and their computers. Yet most of the time, I see VoIP consumers transforming VoIP to legacy POTS, or VoIP hardphones, or stuff like that. I'm going to make a guess and take a stab and say that people are going to prefer to keep their TV's somewhat more TV- like. Or Squid? Or an NNTP server? Speaking as someone who's run the largest Squid and news server deployments in this region, I think I can safely say - no. It's certainly fine to note that both Squid and NNTP have elements that deal with transferring large amounts of data, and that fundamentally similar elements could play a role in the distribution model, but I see no serious role for those at the set-top level. Is video so different from other content? Considering the volume of video that currently traverses P2P networks I really don't see that there is any need for an IP multicast solution except for news feeds and video conferencing. Wow. Okay. I'll just say, then, that such a position seems a bit naive, and I suspect that broadband networks are going to be crying about the sheer stresses on their networks, when moderate numbers of people begin to upload videos into their TiVo, which then share them with other TiVo's owned by their friends around town, or across an ocean, while also downloading a variety of shows from a dozen off-net sources, etc. I really see the any-to-any situation as being somewhat hard on networks, but if you believe that not to be the case, um, I'm listening, I guess. What seems more likely is that we'll see an evolution of more specialized offerings, Yes. The overall trend has been to increasingly split the market into smaller slivers with additional choices being added and older ones still available. Yes, but that's still a broadcast model. We're talking about an evolution (potentially _r_evolution) of technology where the broadcast model itself is altered. During the shift to digital broadcasting in the UK, we retained the free-to-air services with more channels than we had on analog. Satellite continued to grow in diversity and now there is even a Freesat service coming online. Cable TV is still there although now it is usually bundled with broadband Internet as well as telephone service. You can access the Internet over your mobile phone using GPRS, or 3G and wifi is spreading slowly but surely. Yes. But one thing that does not change is the number of hours in the day. Every service competes for scarce attention spans, Yes. However, some things that do change: 1) Broadband speeds continue to increase, making it possible for more content to be transferred 2) Hard drives continue to grow, and the ability to store more, combined with higher bit rates (HD, less artifact, whatever) means that more bits can be transferred to fill the same amount of time 3) Devices such as TiVo are capable of downloading large amounts of material on a speculative basis, even on days where #hrs-tv-watched == 0. I suspect that this effect may be a bit worse as more diversity appears, because instead of hitting stop during a 30-second YouTube clip, you're now hitting delete 15 seconds into a 30-minute InterneTiVo'd show. I bet I can clear out a few hours worth of not-that-great programming in 5 minutes... and a more-or-less fixed portion of people's disposable income. Based on this, I don't expect to see any really huge changes. That's fair enough. That's optimistic (from a network operator's point of view.) I'm afraid that such changes will happen, however. That may allow some less popular channels to come into being. YouTube et al. The problem with that is that there's money to be had, and if you let YouTube host your video, it's YouTube getting the juicy ad money. An essential quality of the Internet is the ability to eliminate the middleman, so even if YouTube has invented itself as a new middleman, that's primarily because it is kind of a new thing, and we do not yet have ways for the average user to easily serve video clips a different way. That will almost
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008, Marc Manthey wrote:
hmm sorry i did not get it IMHO multicast ist uselese for VOD ,
correct ?
As a delivery mechanism to end-users? Sure.
As a way of feeding content to edge boxes which then serve VOD?
Maybe not so useless. But then, its been years since I toyed with
IP over satellite to feed ${STUFF}.. :)
Adrian
___
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:47, Joe Greco wrote: You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing clients? Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large quantities of television on? Perhaps more like the mac mini that's plugged into the big plasma screen in the living room? Or one of the many stereo-component-styled media PCs sold for the same purpose, perhaps even running Windows MCE, a commercial operating system sold precisely because people want to hook their computers up to televisions? Or the old-school hacked XBox running XBMC, pulling video over SMB from the PC in the other room? Or the XBox 360 which can play media from the home-user NAS in the back room? The one with the bittorrent client on it? :-) Joe ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
The OSCAR is the first H.264 encoder appliance designed by HaiVision specifically for QuickTime environments. It natively supports the RTSP streaming media protocol. The OSCAR can stream directly to QuickTime supporting up to full D1 resolution (full standard definition resolution or 720 x 480 NTSC / 576 PAL) at video bit rates up to 1.5 Mbps. The OSCAR supports either multicast or unicast RTSP sessions. With either, up to 10 separate destination streams can be generated by a single OSCAR encoder (more at lower bit rates). So, on a college campus for example, this simple, compact, rugged appliance can be placed virtually anywhere and with a simple network connection can stream video to any QuickTime client on the local network or over the WAN. If more than 10 QuickTime clients need to view or access the video, the OSCAR can be directed to a QuickTime Streaming Server which can typically host well over 1000 clients -Original Message- From: Brandon Galbraith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:51 PM To: Joe Abley Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Joe Greco Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 On 4/22/08, Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:47, Joe Greco wrote: You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing clients? Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large quantities of television on? Perhaps more like the mac mini that's plugged into the big plasma screen in the living room? Or one of the many stereo-component-styled media PCs sold for the same purpose, perhaps even running Windows MCE, a commercial operating system sold precisely because people want to hook their computers up to televisions? Or the old-school hacked XBox running XBMC, pulling video over SMB from the PC in the other room? Or the XBox 360 which can play media from the home-user NAS in the back room? The one with the bittorrent client on it? :-) Don't forget the laptop or thin desktop hooked up to the 24-60 inch monitor in the bedroom/living room to watch Netflix Watch It Now content (which there is no limit on how much can be viewed by a customer). -brandon ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:47, Joe Greco wrote: You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing clients? Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large quantities of television on? Perhaps more like the mac mini that's plugged into the big plasma screen in the living room? Or one of the many stereo-component-styled media PCs sold for the same purpose, perhaps even running Windows MCE, a commercial operating system sold precisely because people want to hook their computers up to televisions? Or the old-school hacked XBox running XBMC, pulling video over SMB from the PC in the other room? Or the XBox 360 which can play media from the home-user NAS in the back room? The one with the bittorrent client on it? :-) Pretty much. People have a fairly clear bias against watching anything on your conventional PC. This probably has something to do with the way the display ergonomics work; my best guess is that most people have their PC's set up in a corner with a chair and a screen suitable for work at a distance of a few feet. As a result, there's usually a clear delineation between devices that are used as general purpose computers, and devices that are used as specialized media display devices. The Mac Mini may be an example of a device that can be used either way, but do you know of many people that use it as a computer (and do all their normal computing tasks) while it's hooked up to a large TV? Even Apple acknowledged the legitimacy of this market by releasing AppleTV. People generally do not want to hook their _computer_ up to televisions, but rather they want to hook _a_ computer up to television so that they're able to do things with their TV that an off-the-shelf product won't do for them. That's an important distinction, and all of the examples you've provided seem to be examples of the latter, rather than the former, which is what I was talking about originally. If you want to discuss the latter, then we've got to include a large field of other devices, ironically including the TiVo, which are actually programmable computers that have been designed for specific media tasks, and are theoretically reprogrammable to support a wide variety of interesting possibilities, and there we have the entry into the avalanche of troubling operational issues that could result from someone releasing software that distributes large amounts of content over the Internet, and ... oh, my bad, that brings us back to what we were talking about. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
...is the first H.264 encoder .. designed by specifically for ... environments. It natively supports the RTSP streaming media protocol. can stream directly to . hi marc so your oskar can rtsp multicast stream over ipv6 and quicktime not , or was this just an ad ? cheers Marc -- Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED] blog : http://www.let.de ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org Klarmachen zum Ändern! http://www.piratenpartei-koeln.de/ ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote: I looked around for text or video from Mr. Cicconi at the Westminster eForum but can't find anything. www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/eforum/default.aspx For what it's worth, I agree with Ryan Paul's summary of the issues here: The rest of the story? http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-04-20-internet-broadband-traffic-jam_N.htm By 2010, the average household will be using 1.1 terabytes (roughly equal to 1,000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica) of bandwidth a month, according to an estimate by the Internet Innovation Alliance in Washington, D.C. At that level, it says, 20 homes would generate more traffic than the entire Internet did in 1995. How many folks remember InternetMCI's lack of capacity in the 1990's when it actually needed to stop installing new Internet connections because InternetMCI didn't have any more capacity for several months. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm. Who exactly is The Internet Innovation Alliance? Unfortunately, their website does not say: [...] As someone pointed out to me privately, this URL outlines it's membership: http://www.internetinnovation.org/AboutUs/Members/tabid/59/Default.aspx Not sure how they found it, since there is no About Us link on the main page. :-) - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIDNdpq1pz9mNUZTMRAvo6AKCIje224+1TOsLCgbXL8mPJ3fRrdgCffnRX B4Wba6bOm/enwEico/R9LWo= =NEjI -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/o ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Hmmm. Who exactly is The Internet Innovation Alliance? http://www.internetinnovation.org/ The domain is registered to Larry Irving in D.C., who was an assistant commerce secretary in the Clinton administration. A little googlage finds this op-ed piece from last May. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301418.html The most interesting part is the author bios at the end: Bruce Mehlman was assistant secretary of commerce under President Bush. Larry Irving was assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton. They are co-chairmen of the Internet Innovation Alliance, a coalition of individuals, businesses and nonprofit groups that includes telecommunications companies. R's, John ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote: But given the content there (generous references to the upcoming Internet exaflood apocalypse), I would guess they are either compromised of telcos and ISPs or telco lobbyists or both. :-) Thank goodness anti-virus companies never hype security threats or fund Internet safety organizations :-) It would be interesting to know (the rest of the story...) Everyone agrees having more data would be useful. It would be great if someone could collect the available data, and get more data from multiple providers (universities, small, large, for-profit, non-profit, etc), and publish something. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Internet Alliance http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwGb=1498631 http://www.internetinnovation.org/ http://www.internetinnovation.org/AboutUs/Members/tabid/59/Default.aspx -Henry - Original Message From: Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:53:41 AM Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote: But given the content there (generous references to the upcoming Internet exaflood apocalypse), I would guess they are either compromised of telcos and ISPs or telco lobbyists or both. :-) Thank goodness anti-virus companies never hype security threats or fund Internet safety organizations :-) It would be interesting to know (the rest of the story...) Everyone agrees having more data would be useful. It would be great if someone could collect the available data, and get more data from multiple providers (universities, small, large, for-profit, non-profit, etc), and publish something. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The most interesting part is the author bios at the end: Bruce Mehlman was assistant secretary of commerce under President Bush. Larry Irving was assistant secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton. They are co-chairmen of the Internet Innovation Alliance, a coalition of individuals, businesses and nonprofit groups that includes telecommunications companies. - It also includes ATT as well as schloads ;-) of companies that sell stuff to them. scott --- ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Sean Donelan wrote: The rest of the story? http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-04-20-internet-broadband-traffic-jam_N.htm By 2010, the average household will be using 1.1 terabytes (roughly equal to 1,000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica) of bandwidth a month, according to an estimate by the Internet Innovation Alliance in Washington, D.C. At that level, it says, 20 homes would generate more traffic than the entire Internet did in 1995. How many folks remember InternetMCI's lack of capacity in the 1990's when it actually needed to stop installing new Internet connections because InternetMCI didn't have any more capacity for several months. I've been on the side arguing that there's going to be enough growth to cause interesting issues (which is very different than arguing for any specific remedy that the telcos think will be in their benefit), but the numbers quoted above strike me as an overstatement. Let's look at the numbers: iTunes video, which looks perfectly acceptable on my old NTSC TV, is .75 gigabytes per viewable hour. I think HDTV is somewhere around 8 megabits per second (if I'm remembering correctly; I may be wrong about that), which would translate to one megabyte per second, or 3.6 gigabytes per hour. For iTunes video, 1.1 terabytes would be 1,100 gigabytes, or 1,100 / .75 = 1,467 hours. 1,467 / 30 = 48.9 hours of video per day. Even assuming we divide that among three or four people in a household, that's staggering. For HDTV, 1,100 gigabytes would be 1,100 / 3.6 = 306 hours per month. 306 / 30 = 10.2 hours per day. Maybe I just don't spend enough time around the leave the TV on all day demographic. Is that a realistic number? Is there something bigger than HDTV video that ATT expects people to start downloading? -Steve ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Steve Gibbard wrote: Maybe I just don't spend enough time around the leave the TV on all day demographic. Is that a realistic number? Is there something bigger than HDTV video that ATT expects people to start downloading? I would not be surprised if many households watch more than 10hrs of TV per day. My trusty old series 2 TiVo often records 5-8hrs of TV per day, even if I don't watch any of it. Right now I can get 80 or so channels of basic cable, and who knows how many of Digital Cable/Satellite for as many TVs as I can fit in my house without the Internet buckling under the pressure. I assume ATT is just saying We use this pipe for TV and Internet, hence all TV is now considered Internet traffic? How many people are REALLY going to be pulling 10hrs of HD or even SD TV across their Internet connection, rather than just taking what is Multicasted from a Satellite base station by their TV service provider? Is there something significant about ATT's model (other than the VDSL over twisted pair, rather than coax/fiber to the prem) that makes them more afraid than Comcast, Charter or Cox? Maybe I'm just totally missing something - Wouldn't be the first time. Why would TV of any sort even touch the 'Internet'. And, no, YouTube is not TV as far as I'm concerned. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Once upon a time, Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: iTunes video, which looks perfectly acceptable on my old NTSC TV, is .75 gigabytes per viewable hour. I think HDTV is somewhere around 8 megabits per second (if I'm remembering correctly; I may be wrong about that), which would translate to one megabyte per second, or 3.6 gigabytes per hour. You're a little low. ATSC (the over-the-air digital broadcast format) is 19 megabits per second or 8.55 gigabytes per hour. My TiVo probably records 12-20 hours per day (I don't watch all that of course), often using two tuners (so up to 38 megabits per second). That's not all HD today of course, but the percentage that is HD is going up. 1.1 terabytes of ATSC-level HD would be a little over 4 hours a day. If you have a family with multiple TVs, that's easy to hit. That also assumes that we get 40-60 megabit connections (2-3 ATSC format channels) that can sustain that level of traffic to the household with widespread deployment in 2 years and that the average household hooks it up to their TVs. -- Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Why would TV of any sort even touch the 'Internet'. And, no, YouTube is not TV as far as I'm concerned. FWIW: http://www.worldmulticast.com/marketsummary.html ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Once upon a time, Simon Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:43:14PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: You're a little low. ATSC (the over-the-air digital broadcast format) is 19 megabits per second or 8.55 gigabytes per hour. I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD is around 4-6Mbps, MPEG4 SD is around 2-4Mbps, MPEG4 HD is anywhere from 8 to 20Mbps, depending on how much wow factor the broadcaster is trying to give. Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. That can carry multiple sub-channels, or it can be used for a single channel. Standard definition DVDs can be up to 10 megabits per second. Both only use MPEG2; MPEG4 can be around half that for similar quality. The base Blu-Ray data rate is 36 megabits per second (to allow for high quality MPEG2 at up to 1080p60 resolution). -- Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Steve Gibbard wrote: Maybe I just don't spend enough time around the leave the TV on all day demographic. Is that a realistic number? Is there something bigger than HDTV video that ATT expects people to start downloading? I would not be surprised if many households watch more than 10hrs of TV per day. My trusty old series 2 TiVo often records 5-8hrs of TV per day, even if I don't watch any of it. Right now I can get 80 or so channels of basic cable, and who knows how many of Digital Cable/Satellite for as many TVs as I can fit in my house without the Internet buckling under the pressure. I assume ATT is just saying We use this pipe for TV and Internet, hence all TV is now considered Internet traffic? How many people are REALLY going to be pulling 10hrs of HD or even SD TV across their Internet connection, rather than just taking what is Multicasted from a Satellite base station by their TV service provider? Is there something significant about ATT's model (other than the VDSL over twisted pair, rather than coax/fiber to the prem) that makes them more afraid than Comcast, Charter or Cox? Maybe I'm just totally missing something - Wouldn't be the first time. Why would TV of any sort even touch the 'Internet'. And, no, YouTube is not TV as far as I'm concerned. The real problem is that this technology is just in its infancy. Right now, our TiVo's may pull in many hours a day of TV to watch. In my case, it's from satellite. In yours, maybe from a cable company. That's fine, that's manageable, and the technology used to move the signal from the broad/multicast point to your settop box is only vaguely relevant. It is not unicast. There is, however, an opportunity here for a fundamental change in the distribution model of video, and this should terrify any network operator. That would be an evolution towards unicast, particularly off-net unicast. I posted a message on Oct 10 of last year suggesting one potential model for evolution of video services. We're seeing the market target narrower segments of the viewing public, and if this continues, we may well see some channel partner with TiVo to provide on-demand access to remote content over the Internet. That could well lead to a model where you would have TiVo speculatively preloading content, and potentially vast amounts of it. Or, worse yet, the popularity of YouTube suggests that at some point, we may end up with a new local webserver service on the next generation Microsoft Whoopta OS that was capable of publication of video from the local PC, maybe vaguely similar to BitTorrent under the hood, allowing for a much higher bandwidth podcast-like service where your TiVo (and everyone else's) is downloading video slowly from lots of different sources. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Chris Adams wrote: Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. That can carry multiple sub-channels, or it can be used for a single channel. Standard definition DVDs can be up to 10 megabits per second. Both only use MPEG2; MPEG4 can be around half that for similar quality. The base Blu-Ray data rate is 36 megabits per second (to allow for high quality MPEG2 at up to 1080p60 resolution). From wikipedia (see: Appeal to authority :-): The different resolutions can operate in progressive scan or interlaced mode, although the highest 1080-line system cannot display progressive images at the rate of 59.94 or 60 frames per second. (Such technology was seen as too advanced at the time, plus the image quality was deemed to be too poor considering the amount of data that can be transmitted.) A terrestrial (over-the-air) transmission carries 19.39 megabits of data per second, compared to a maximum possible bitrate of 10.08 Mbit/s allowed in the DVD standard. Ric ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
My directivo records wads of stuff every day, but they are the same bits that rain down on gazillions of other potential recorders and viewers. Incremental cost to serve one more household, pretty much zero. There are definitely narrowcast applications that don't make sense to broadcast down from a bird, but it also makes no sense at all to claim for capacity planning purposes that every household will need a unicast IP stream of all it's TV viewing capacity... -dorn On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Ric Messier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Chris Adams wrote: Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. That can carry multiple sub-channels, or it can be used for a single channel. Standard definition DVDs can be up to 10 megabits per second. Both only use MPEG2; MPEG4 can be around half that for similar quality. The base Blu-Ray data rate is 36 megabits per second (to allow for high quality MPEG2 at up to 1080p60 resolution). From wikipedia (see: Appeal to authority :-): The different resolutions can operate in progressive scan or interlaced mode, although the highest 1080-line system cannot display progressive images at the rate of 59.94 or 60 frames per second. (Such technology was seen as too advanced at the time, plus the image quality was deemed to be too poor considering the amount of data that can be transmitted.) A terrestrial (over-the-air) transmission carries 19.39 megabits of data per second, compared to a maximum possible bitrate of 10.08 Mbit/s allowed in the DVD standard. Ric ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Williams, Marc [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.worldmulticast.com/marketsummary.html -- We should be careful when discussing IPTV traffic issues. Is it inter-AS or intra-AS traffic? I'd imagine the beginning of the IPTV roll-out will be intra-AS traffic, rather than inter-AS and global. We're looking into starting up with it on a small scale to work all the bugs out before expanding the customer base (like ATT did in San Antonio) but no IPTV traffic will leave our network. ATT is rapidly expanding U-verse (http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2826839220070328 and http://seekingalpha.com/article/30657-project-lightspeed-at-t-s-iptv-architecture) and perhaps they've seen the BW issues better than others, thus the FUD by their vice president of legislative affairs at the Westminster eForum. Perhaps in his PoV ATT's current network infrastructure is the Internet's current network architecture. scott - ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: iTunes video, which looks perfectly acceptable on my old NTSC TV, is .75 gigabytes per viewable hour. I think HDTV is somewhere around 8 megabits per second (if I'm remembering correctly; I may be wrong about that), which would translate to one megabyte per second, or 3.6 gigabytes per hour. You're a little low. ATSC (the over-the-air digital broadcast format) is 19 megabits per second or 8.55 gigabytes per hour. My TiVo probably records 12-20 hours per day (I don't watch all that of course), often using two tuners (so up to 38 megabits per second). That's not all HD today of course, but the percentage that is HD is going up. 1.1 terabytes of ATSC-level HD would be a little over 4 hours a day. If you have a family with multiple TVs, that's easy to hit. That also assumes that we get 40-60 megabit connections (2-3 ATSC format channels) that can sustain that level of traffic to the household with widespread deployment in 2 years and that the average household hooks it up to their TVs. I'm going to have to say that that's much higher than we're actually going to see. You have to remember that there's not a ton of compression going on in that. We're looking to start pushing HD video online, and our intial tests show that 1.5Mbps is plenty to push HD resolutions of video online. We won't necessarily be doing 60 fps or full quality audio, but HD doesn't actually define exactly what it's going to be. Look at the HD offerings online today and I think you'll find that they're mostly 1-1.5 Mbps. TV will stay much higher quality than that, but if people are watching from their PCs, I think you'll see much more compression going on, given that the hardware processing it has a lot more horsepower. -- Alex Thurlow Technical Director Blastro Networks ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
I am pretty sure he is basing it on this: http://www.internetinnovation.org/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/94/Default.aspx which itself refers to the Nemertes report, issued last November: The Internet Singularity, Delayed: Why Limits in Internet Capacity Will Stifle Innovation on the Web http://www.nemertes.com/internet_singularity_delayed_why_limits_internet_capacity_will_stifle_innovation_web and much discussed at the time - http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=13 and elsewhere. Joly MacFie http://isoc-ny.org/ From: Scott Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? --- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com --- ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
All, Interesting ATT project ... the IP (and voice) world according to ATT, from a New York State of Mind: http://senseable.mit.edu/nyte/index.html Ted At 03:16 PM 4/19/2008, Sean wrote: On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Weeks wrote: Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? Have there been an second reporting sources, or does anyone have a Youtube link of Mr. Cicconi's actual statement in context? So far there seems to only be a single reporter's account, echoed in the bloggerdome. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Not to defend ATT or the statement regarding capacity, but... On Apr 20, 2008, at 4:16 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: The article is full of gaffes, just to mention one Internet exists, thanks to the infrastructure provided by a group of mostly private companies. I suspect this was referencing the difference between public as in governmentally owned/operated (e.g., most of the highway system in the US) vs. private that is non-governmentally owned/operated. The Internet of today does indeed exist because of private efforts. Regards, -drc ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Weeks wrote: Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? Have there been an second reporting sources, or does anyone have a Youtube link of Mr. Cicconi's actual statement in context? So far there seems to only be a single reporter's account, echoed in the bloggerdome. -- For the record, I didn't say the above. I said this: - Look at who is saying it and it's quite obvious... Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for ATT, warned... - I looked around for text or video from Mr. Cicconi at the Westminster eForum but can't find anything. www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/eforum/default.aspx scott ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I looked around for text or video from Mr. Cicconi at the Westminster eForum but can't find anything. www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/eforum/default.aspx For what it's worth, I agree with Ryan Paul's summary of the issues here: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080420-analysis-att-fear-mongering-o n-net-capacity-mostly-fud.html ...but take it at face value. $.02, - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIDBkpq1pz9mNUZTMRAlZ1AKCehJ0/xwgXXA9RBRwuIWfcLGp+9ACfbcJw lsmtPaDeGkV5/PllhBqBV88= =z8LR -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/ ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my experience, ATT(SBC at that time) hit over its effective capacity (over 50% average utilization, and therefore no redundancy) around 2001. Sounds like you're talking about 7018, not 7132 (SBC), and even 7018 is doing okay for capacity now that its high-traffic customers (Comcast) are moving traffic elsewhere. Do you have any specific data to share with the NANOG community supporting of these claims? At least for clients I was working with, it was always evident that they didn't have enough capacity in any node to carry the traffic if they had a problem on any single upstream link. They also tended to manually handle routing decisions as opposed to letting the IGP handle it. Likewise, I'd be interested in implementation specifics of how a network of ATT's caliber could implement backbone redundancy and TE with static routing. Any data you could share would be extremely helpful. Paul Wall ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Paul Wall wrote: They also tended to manually handle routing decisions as opposed to letting the IGP handle it. Likewise, I'd be interested in implementation specifics of how a network of ATT's caliber could implement backbone redundancy and TE with static routing. atm-2, circuitzilla's dream machine. randy ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Weeks wrote: Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? Have there been an second reporting sources, or does anyone have a Youtube link of Mr. Cicconi's actual statement in context? So far there seems to only be a single reporter's account, echoed in the bloggerdome. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
I believe you have to take in account from whom and where some assertions are coming from. The article is full of gaffes, just to mention one Internet exists, thanks to the infrastructure provided by a group of mostly private companies. AFAIK, most of the telecommunication companies and technology providers that conform the core infrastructure of the net are public traded companies, including ATT. And I concur that even with the dramatic traffic increase due HD media is hard to believe that 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today in three years. Perhaps he is transpiring what from a legal point of view ATT thinks about Net Neutrality and his take about public/consortium vs private traffic policying. My .02 ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
In my experience, ATT(SBC at that time) hit over its effective capacity (over 50% average utilization, and therefore no redundancy) around 2001. At least for clients I was working with, it was always evident that they didn't have enough capacity in any node to carry the traffic if they had a problem on any single upstream link. They also tended to manually handle routing decisions as opposed to letting the IGP handle it. Given the nature of the beast, I doubt that has changed much, and the anecdotal evidence posted here, most recently related to ATT/Cogent peering, bears that out. So, maybe from ATT's perspective the Internet (meaning their backbone) WILL be saturated by 2010. Since the Internet is a network of independent internets connected to each other, I'd like to know how Cicconi knows what the level of saturation of everyone else's backbone is, or their available dark capacity. I would think those are trade secrets that are closely guarded. It seems what we have here is ATT trying to create public hue and cry, so that the taxpayer will be compelled to pay for their required and overdue network upgrades, instead of themselves; or in order to get further regulatory relief in the name of investing in their infrastructure, as was done in the late '90s. Given their, and other's, track records with the subsidies and regulatory relief they were given in the late '90s, which they used to bankrupt the CLECs, and then passed the increased revenue onto shareholders, rather than investing in infrastructure, I'd be disinclined to give them what they want. The US lags the world in Broadband not because the FCC and PUCs hamstring the ILECs, but because of the disincentive for for-profit common stock companies with government granted monopolies to do much more than the bare minimum capital investment to keep operating costs low and competitors out of the market, while maximizing revenue from existing sunk cost. Would be competitors, on the other hand, have to make massive capital investments that require a long recovery period or high short-term prices, and are easily bankrupted by predatory pricing by the incumbents. -Original Message- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:16 PM To: Scott Weeks Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Weeks wrote: Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? Have there been an second reporting sources, or does anyone have a Youtube link of Mr. Cicconi's actual statement in context? So far there seems to only be a single reporter's account, echoed in the bloggerdome. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Scott Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html I find claims that soon everything will be HD somewhat dubious (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40% of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until it became too late. ) although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as in 3 years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today. Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to typical households in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't have accurate figures on how much traffic the entire Internet generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering? Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were Maybe he has been trading on the Internet is going to die since 1981 and his shorts on the Internet are coming due in 2010? I mean this sounds as much like all the other pump and dump things I have read :). tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to soften up legislators for the next wave of reasonable network management practices that just happen to have significant revenue streams attached to them ... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED],darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote: http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html I find claims that soon everything will be HD somewhat dubious (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as in 3 years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today. Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to typical households in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't have accurate figures on how much traffic the entire Internet generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. 40 Gbps? Does anyone think the Internet has fewer than twenty 40 Gbps links' worth of traffic? I know individual networks that have more traffic. Could we get 100 Gbps to the home by 2010? Hell, we're having trouble getting 100 Gbps to the CORE by 2010 thanx to companies like Sun forcing 40 Gbps ethernet down the IEEE's throat. Not that 100 Gbps would be enough anyway to make his statement true. Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? His answers are so far off, they're not even wrong. Basis? You don't need a basis for such blatantly and objectively false information that even the most newbie neophyte laughs their ass off while reading it. Good thing C|Net asked vice president of legislative affairs about traffic statistics. Or maybe they didn't ask, but they sure listened. Perhaps they should ask the Network Architect about the legislative implications around NN laws. Actually, they would probably get more useful answers than asking a lawyer about bandwidth. C|Net-- I'd say the same about att, but -- TTFN, patrick Internal reports from ATT engineering? Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to soften up legislators for the next wave of reasonable network management practices that just happen to have significant revenue streams attached to them ... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED],darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40% of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until it became too late. ) This is not accurate. In 2009 the US is terminating analog (NTSC) transmission of 'over the air' broadcasts. It has nothing to do with 'high definition' broadcasts. OTA broadcasts will just be done using ATSC, rather than NTSC. It will continue to provide SD programming. David ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Scott Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html I find claims that soon everything will be HD somewhat dubious (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40% of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until it became too late. ) I'm part of the 60%... since I'm on satellite I believe I don't need to switch... in fact it would cost me more to get service in HD now if I did switch. I suspect there are a lot of me's out there. -- Jeff Shultz ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
If the cable operators put their broadcast content onto an access network multicast . . . Then how could they resell the same content to europe? -Original Message- From: Scott Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:15 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html I find claims that soon everything will be HD somewhat dubious (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as in 3 years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today. Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to typical households in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't have accurate figures on how much traffic the entire Internet generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering? Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to soften up legislators for the next wave of reasonable network management practices that just happen to have significant revenue streams attached to them ... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED],darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
If the cable operators put their broadcast content onto an access network multicast . . . Then how could they resell the same content to europe? hello, my biggest problem in understanding the ip6 / multicast concept is if the whole internet were multicast enabled and there is no unicast stream would´nt this not decrease_the_traffic_to_a_reasonable amount ??!! regards marc - Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- John F. Kennedy, 35th US president Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED] blog : http://www.let.de ipv6 http://stattfernsehen.com/matrix ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how ATT owes everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in statutory penalties for their unlawful spying. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 From: Mike Lieman [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how ATT owes everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in statutory penalties for their unlawful spying. If it's impossible to hold ATT accountable for violating the Law in such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards would be ensconced in Law? ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On 18-Apr-08, at 1:45 PM, David Coulson wrote: Stephen John Smoogen wrote: I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40% of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until it became too late. ) This is not accurate. In 2009 the US is terminating analog (NTSC) transmission of 'over the air' broadcasts. It has nothing to do with 'high definition' broadcasts. OTA broadcasts will just be done using ATSC, rather than NTSC. It will continue to provide SD programming. Bet you a beer it won't happen. :) Just like the mandated HD broadcasts in top markets by 1997 or else they lose license. cheers, --dr ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Scott Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? From: Bill Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wouldn't be shocked at all if this was an element of multi-pronged lobbying approaches... Look at who is saying it and it's quite obvious... Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for ATT, warned... scott ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Dragos Ruiu wrote: Bet you a beer it won't happen. :) I will let you know next February when my rabbit ears stop working :) ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
