: ...My view on this subject is U.S.-centric...this
: is NANOG, not AFNOG or EuroNOG or SANOG.
The 'internet' is generally boundary-less. I would hope that one day our
discussions will be likewise. Otherwise, the forces of the boundary-creators
will segment everthing we are working on and
Given that the broadcast model for streaming content
is so successful, why would you want to use the
Internet for it?
We now have to pay for spectrum, when you have to pay you look for the
cheapest delivery path.
Until we switch off analogue there is a shortage of spectrum so we have
limited
Gian Constantine wrote:
Well, yes. My view on this subject is U.S.-centric. In fairness to me,
this is NANOG, not AFNOG or EuroNOG or SANOG.
I thought Québec and Mexico did belong to the North American Network too.
...
I agree there is a market for ethnic and niche content, but it is not
I remember the times when I could watch mexican tv transmitted from a
studio in florida.
If it comes from a studio in Florida then it
is AMERICAN TV, not Mexican TV. I believe there
are three national TV networks in the USA,
which are headquartered in Miami and which
broadcast in Spanish.
I am not sure what I was thinking. Mr Bonomi was kind enough to point
out a failed calculation for me. Obviously, a HD file would only be
about 3.7GB for a 90 minute file at 5500kbps. In my haste, I
neglected to convert bits to bytes. My apologies.
Gian Anthony Constantine
Senior Network
On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Bora Akyol wrote:
[...]
I would argue that other than sports (and some news) events, there is
pretty much no content that needs to be real time.
I'm not sure I agree. I've noticed that almost any form of live TV,
with the exception of news and sports
Not only does this type of programming require real-time
distribution, as these shows are quite often cheaper to produce than
pre-recorded entertainment or documentaries they tend to fill a large
portion of the schedule.
And since there are so many of these reality shows in
existence and
On 8-Jan-2007, at 22:26, Gian Constantine wrote:
My contention is simple. The content providers will not allow P2P
video as a legal commercial service anytime in the near future.
Furthermore, most ISPs are going to side with the content providers
on this one. Therefore, discussing it at
We have looked at Amazon's S3 solution for storage since it is
relatively cheap. But the transit costs from Amazon are quite expensive
when it comes to moving media files at a large scale. At $0.20 per GB of
data transferred, that would get extremely expensive. At Pando we move
roughly 60
Those numbers are reasonably accurate for some networks at certain
times. There is often a back and forth between BitTorrent and NNTP
traffic. Many ISPs regulate BitTorrent traffic for this very reason.
Massive increases in this type of traffic would not be looked upon
favorably.
If you
On 9-Jan-2007, at 11:29, Gian Constantine wrote:
Those numbers are reasonably accurate for some networks at certain
times. There is often a back and forth between BitTorrent and NNTP
traffic. Many ISPs regulate BitTorrent traffic for this very
reason. Massive increases in this type of
Hi all -
Over the last year or so I have been working with Internet video
companies who asked essentially the same question - What is the most
effective way of distributing massive quantities of Internet (video)
traffic? This has become a significant issue NOW because a few of
the largest US
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Gian Constantine wrote:
Those numbers are reasonably accurate for some networks at certain times.
There is often a back and forth between BitTorrent and NNTP traffic. Many
ISPs regulate BitTorrent traffic for this very reason. Massive increases in
this type of traffic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Bill,
Just as an observation, it appears to me (at least) that the
most popular method of video distribution today is via GooTube. :-)
I think it remains to be seen that that model will actually change
dramatically to more of a semi- real-time
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gian Constantine
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 7:27 PM
To: Thomas Leavitt
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a
day, continuously?
My contention is
You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small closed
networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly change.
One of my previous assertions was the possibility of streaming video
as the major motivator of IPv6 migration. Without it, video streaming
to a large
On 9-Jan-2007, at 13:04, Gian Constantine wrote:
You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small
closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly
change. One of my previous assertions was the possibility of
streaming video as the major motivator of IPv6
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Fergie
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 9:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Internet Video: The Next Wave of Massive
Disruption to the US Peer ing Ecosystem (v1.2)
On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Gian Constantine wrote:
You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small
closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly
change.
I am curious. Why do you think that ?
Regards
Marshall
One of my previous assertions was the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Bora Akyol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this discussion is going towards the content that one would
**actually** like to see.
On this, we agree. :-)
I understand there are people that don't watch
TV at all. I am not one of them. I have
The available address space for multicast in IPv4 is limited. IPv6
vastly expands this space. And here, I may have been guilty of
putting the cart before the horse. Inter-AS multicast does not exist
today because the motivators are not there. It is absolutely
possible, but providers have
This is a little presumptuous on my part, but what other reason would
motivate a migration to IPv6. I fail to see us running out of unicast
addresses any time soon. I have been hearing IPv6 is coming for many
years now. I think video service is really the only motivation for
migrating.
I
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:21:38 -0500
Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small
closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly
change.
I am curious. Why do you think that ?
I could have said the same
On 1/9/07, Fergie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
Just as an observation, it appears to me (at least) that the
most popular method of video distribution today is via GooTube. :-)
I think it remains to be seen that that model will actually change
dramatically to more of a semi- real-time model,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Gian Constantine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The available address space for multicast in IPv4 is limited. IPv6 vastly
expands this space. And here, I may have been guilty of putting the cart
before the horse. Inter-AS multicast does not exist
Fair enough. :-)
Nearly everything has a time and place, though.
Pretty much everything on this thread is speculative.
Gian Anthony Constantine
Senior Network Design Engineer
Earthlink, Inc.
Office: 404-748-6207
Cell: 404-808-4651
Internal Ext: x22007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 9, 2007, at
On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Fergie wrote:
Gian Constantine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If demand for variety in service provider selection grows with the
proliferation of IPTV, we may see the required motivation for
inter-AS multicast, which places us in a position moving to the
large
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/9/07, Fergie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it remains to be seen that that model will actually change
dramatically to more of a semi- real-time model, regardless of
the desires (or fears)
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:08:16AM -0800, William B. Norton wrote:
Hi all -
Over the last year or so I have been working with Internet video
companies who asked essentially the same question - What is the most
effective way of distributing massive quantities of Internet (video)
traffic?
On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that the broadcast model for streaming content
is so successful, why would you want to use the
Internet for it? What is the benefit?
How many channels can you get on your (terrestrial) broadcast receiver?
If you want
On Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 10:26:30PM -0500, Gian Constantine wrote:
My contention is simple. The content providers will not allow P2P
video as a legal commercial service anytime in the near future.
Furthermore, most ISPs are going to side with the content providers
on this one. Therefore,
On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:17:56AM -0800, Scott Weeks wrote:
: ...My view on this subject is U.S.-centric...this
: is NANOG, not AFNOG or EuroNOG or SANOG.
The 'internet' is generally boundary-less. I would hope that one day our
discussions will be likewise. Otherwise, the forces of the
On 2007-01-09-12:08:16, William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] a few of the largest US ISPs are turning away these n*10G
Internet video transit customers !
I'd be interested in learning of specific vendors/markets, along with
the reasons given. Did they cite temporary capacity
Simon
An additional point to consider is that it takes a lot of effort and
to get a channel allocated to your content in a cable network.
This is much easier when TV is being distributed over the Internet.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would not be any easier. The negotiations are very complex. The
issue is not one of infrastructure capex. It is one of jockeying
between content providers (big media conglomerates) and the video
service providers (cable companies).
Gian Anthony Constantine
Senior Network Design Engineer
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:29:32 EST, Gian Constantine said:
If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree streaming
is scary on a large scale, but unicast streaming is what I reference.
Multicast streaming is the real solution. Ultimately, a global
multicast network is the
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:55:47 EST, Gian Constantine said:
This is a little presumptuous on my part, but what other reason would
motivate a migration to IPv6. I fail to see us running out of unicast
addresses any time soon.
That's OK, I don't see us running out of multicast addresses any
On 1/9/07, Adam Rothschild [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-01-09-12:08:16, William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] a few of the largest US ISPs are turning away these n*10G
Internet video transit customers !
I'd be interested in learning of specific vendors/markets, along with
the
On 1/9/07, Adam Rothschild [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here in the New York metro, you'd be hard pressed to find a vendor
willing to turn away a 10G transit deal and the associated revenue.
In the past few months, I've been approached by half a dozen or so
major carriers eager to sell 10 gigabit
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Multicast streaming may be a big win when you're only streaming the top
5 or 10 networks (for some value of 5 or 10). What's the performance
characteristics if you have 300K customers, and at any given time, 10%
are watching something from the long
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[lots of good stuff elided]
There is rarely only one way to solve a problem. There will be multiple
ways to distribute data, video, voice, etc.
Completely agreed, and I think this is the crux of the
There you go. SSM would be a great solution. Who the hell supports
it, though?
We still get back to the issue of large scale market acceptance. High
take rate will be limited to the more popular channels, which are run
by large media conglomerates, who are reluctant to let streams out of
Sean Donelan wrote:
1/2, 1/3, etc the bandwidth for each additional viewer of the same
stream?
The worst case for a multicast stream is the same as the unicast
stream, but the unicast stream is always the worst case.
However unicast stream does not require state in the intermediate boxes
Dear Valdis;
On Jan 9, 2007, at 10:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:29:32 EST, Gian Constantine said:
If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree streaming
is scary on a large scale, but unicast streaming is what I reference.
Multicast streaming is the
On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Gian Constantine wrote:
It would not be any easier. The negotiations are very complex. The
issue is not one of infrastructure capex. It is one of jockeying
between content providers (big media conglomerates) and the video
service providers (cable companies).
On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Valdis;
On Jan 9, 2007, at 10:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:29:32 EST, Gian Constantine said:
If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree
streaming
is scary on a large scale, but unicast
Marshall,
I completely agree, and due diligence on business models will show that fact
very clearly. And nothing much has changed here in terms of substance over the
last 4+ yrs either. Costs and opportunities have changed or evolved rather,
but not the mechanics.
Infrastructure capital
47 matches
Mail list logo
