Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Mark Tinka]

On 1/Apr/20 21:46, Owen DeLong wrote:

> I don’t pretend to have a global view. I have my own perspective. I do my best
> to understand perspectives of others. Claiming to be able to speak from a 
> global
> view is beyond my abilities. I am truly impressed that you are able to do so.
>
> Please teach me how to develop such a perspective.

There was a time when having a different mobile phone was the thing. The
smaller, the better.

Then there came a time when running a different OS on your phone was a
thing. Symbian or Windows Mobile or BlackBerry.

Then came smartphones in 2007, and owning an iPhone was a thing.

Then there was a time when having certain apps was a thing.

Then Samsung and Google hit the scene and owning one was a thing.

Then there was a time when having a certain version of Android was a thing.

In 2020, nobody cares what phone you have, how large or small it is,
what apps you have or use, or how long your battery lasts. In this
hyper-connected world, all most people care about is utility and value.

If 2 billion people of God's green earth can all coalesce around
Facebook and WhatsApp, how different are we, really?


> Yes, but the solution to that is education.

In this new economy, the concept of how the kids learn is changing fast.
While we want to force many of them to follow the traditional schooling
system we all went through, I'm not sure that's the right approach
anymore. Information is a commodity now, and the kids will learn the way
they want to, formal schooling or not.

So yes, education is certainly how you fix this. But how do you
effectively get that message across to a set of people who will only
tune into what they like, when they like, and find all your rules boring
and overbearing?



> Not so sure about that. I think that GDPR and similar legislation sweeping 
> through
> the world is an indication that more and more people are becoming aware of the
> issue, even if the tide is not yet turning against the surveillance economy.

When this lockdown is over, I'll randomly ask the kids, street vendors
and taxi drivers what GDPR is.

I'll let you know what I find :-).


> Only among the weakest-minded parents.

The world is a diverse place.


> Actually, it makes me rethink whether the child should be using Twitch at all.
> When my child cries her lungs out because she’s deprived of some app or
> connectivity for some period of time, the result is that she loses access to
> that item for a significantly longer period of time. It only took a few 
> instances
> of this for her behavior to shift from temper tantrum to negotiation.

Good man.


>
> Keeping my child connected is absolutely NOT a factor in an automotive
> purchase decision in my household. It’s a byproduct of keeping me and/or
> my wife connected, if it is a consideration at all. (So far, not).

Good for you, and the Mrs.


>
> Mobility services, again, focus is the needs of the adults in this area. The
> child has a wifi-only iPad and a bare-bones unlimited plan on her mobile
> that comes with 2GB of LTE high speed data per month and drops to 128k
> after she burns through that (usually in the first 5 days of the billing 
> cycle,
> though she is getting better about rationing it and paying attention to when
> she’s using mobile data vs. wifi.

I'm delaying all that for as long as I can.

For the moment, they are reasonably sociable human beings, whose first
words when they enter someone else's home aren't, "What's the wi-fi?"

I'll enjoy these moments. This hyper-connected world is only going to
get worse.


> IMHO, if parents are catering to a greater level of screen addiction in their
> kids, they’re not teaching their kids a variety of important life skills.

True story.


> I’m not as convinced of this as you are, but time will tell.
>
> There is definitely behavior in evidence that aligns with your statements. 
> However,
> there is less evidence to support your conclusions of the reasons behind that
> behavior.

I like studies and papers and all that, but I also have a healthy dose
of 1+1.

I'm not always right (if ever), but I don't strive to be. I'm just
observing my surroundings.


> LOL
>
> My daughter has a phone. She’s 11. She’s had a phone since she was 7.
> However, she has that phone for the convenience of the adults. It provides
> an easy way to track her whereabouts and an easy way for us to get in
> touch with her to coordinate things. Any other benefit she derives from
> the phone are “privileges” subject to restriction (her phone has parental
> management on and most of the settings are locked down. She cannot
> install new apps without specific permission (enforced via the app store)
> and she has a very limited set of apps on the phone.). The web browser
> is disabled on her phone. She’s required to put it in “airplane” mode
> before school each day and take it out of “airplane” mode when she
> leaves school each day.
>
> Again, not because she wanted a phone, but for the 

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Owen DeLong]

> On Apr 1, 2020, at 04:46 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 31/Mar/20 23:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> From my perspective, anyone born in this century pretty much qualifies as
>> a kid at this point. Maybe even the last 3-4 years of the previous one.
> 
> To a great extent, yes. But I'd say the last 15 years have been very
> telling.
> 
> 
>> Turning consumers into products. Personally, not a fan and I think GDPR is
>> a sure sign that there is a backlash coming. The main reason it is tolerated
>> so far is most people aren’t aware of what it really means or even that it
>> is actually happening.
> 
> Right - I'm speaking to the global view, and not a personal one.

I don’t pretend to have a global view. I have my own perspective. I do my best
to understand perspectives of others. Claiming to be able to speak from a global
view is beyond my abilities. I am truly impressed that you are able to do so.

Please teach me how to develop such a perspective.

> I do everything to stay away from being surveilled beyond what I am
> comfortable with, but taking a global view, we are the minority.

Yes, but the solution to that is education.

> For as long as I can foresee, I don't see us becoming the majority.

Not so sure about that. I think that GDPR and similar legislation sweeping 
through
the world is an indication that more and more people are becoming aware of the
issue, even if the tide is not yet turning against the surveillance economy.

>> 4-5 year olds don’t define the economy today and likely won’t have 
>> significant
>> input into it for at least 10-11 years.
>> 
>> My observation is that they are _NOT_ the ones influencing this.
> 
> Ummh - the kids aren't "directly" participating in the economy, but they
> are certainly influencing.

Only among the weakest-minded parents.

> When your kid cries his lungs out because the walk from home to
> grandpa's meant he wasn't on Twitch, it makes you, the parent, re-think
> how you keep them connected between dead zones. What devices you buy
> them to keep them happy. What car you drive to keep them connected.
> Which services you purchase that support that mobility. Which
> restaurants or playgrounds you take them to where they can get free
> wi-fi, and on and on and on.

Actually, it makes me rethink whether the child should be using Twitch at all.
When my child cries her lungs out because she’s deprived of some app or
connectivity for some period of time, the result is that she loses access to
that item for a significantly longer period of time. It only took a few 
instances
of this for her behavior to shift from temper tantrum to negotiation.

Keeping my child connected is absolutely NOT a factor in an automotive
purchase decision in my household. It’s a byproduct of keeping me and/or
my wife connected, if it is a consideration at all. (So far, not).

Mobility services, again, focus is the needs of the adults in this area. The
child has a wifi-only iPad and a bare-bones unlimited plan on her mobile
that comes with 2GB of LTE high speed data per month and drops to 128k
after she burns through that (usually in the first 5 days of the billing cycle,
though she is getting better about rationing it and paying attention to when
she’s using mobile data vs. wifi.

IMHO, if parents are catering to a greater level of screen addiction in their
kids, they’re not teaching their kids a variety of important life skills.

> The kids don't have to be direct economic contributors to have an
> influence on those that do. That has always been the case since we had
> to raise them, but now more so because of the new economy this Internet
> thing is birthing.

I’m not as convinced of this as you are, but time will tell.

There is definitely behavior in evidence that aligns with your statements. 
However,
there is less evidence to support your conclusions of the reasons behind that
behavior.

> For the last 8 or so years, I've resisted my wife's persistent pressures
> to get the kids a phone. They are now going to be 13, and I promised
> them phones when they either turn 20, or go to work and earn their own
> cash to buy their own phones if they want them sooner than that. I feel
> I had a handle on that for as long as I can remember, but in this
> hyper-connected world where school assignments are sent via e-mail, I
> may have to give in sooner than I planned :-\. Ah well, I had a good run
> :-).
> 

LOL

My daughter has a phone. She’s 11. She’s had a phone since she was 7.
However, she has that phone for the convenience of the adults. It provides
an easy way to track her whereabouts and an easy way for us to get in
touch with her to coordinate things. Any other benefit she derives from
the phone are “privileges” subject to restriction (her phone has parental
management on and most of the settings are locked down. She cannot
install new apps without specific permission (enforced via the app store)
and she has a very limited set of apps on the phone.). The web browser
is 

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Mark Tinka]

On 31/Mar/20 23:22, Owen DeLong wrote:

> From my perspective, anyone born in this century pretty much qualifies as
> a kid at this point. Maybe even the last 3-4 years of the previous one.

To a great extent, yes. But I'd say the last 15 years have been very
telling.


> Turning consumers into products. Personally, not a fan and I think GDPR is
> a sure sign that there is a backlash coming. The main reason it is tolerated
> so far is most people aren’t aware of what it really means or even that it
> is actually happening.

Right - I'm speaking to the global view, and not a personal one.

I do everything to stay away from being surveilled beyond what I am
comfortable with, but taking a global view, we are the minority.

For as long as I can foresee, I don't see us becoming the majority.


> 4-5 year olds don’t define the economy today and likely won’t have significant
> input into it for at least 10-11 years.
>
> My observation is that they are _NOT_ the ones influencing this.

Ummh - the kids aren't "directly" participating in the economy, but they
are certainly influencing.

When your kid cries his lungs out because the walk from home to
grandpa's meant he wasn't on Twitch, it makes you, the parent, re-think
how you keep them connected between dead zones. What devices you buy
them to keep them happy. What car you drive to keep them connected.
Which services you purchase that support that mobility. Which
restaurants or playgrounds you take them to where they can get free
wi-fi, and on and on and on.

The kids don't have to be direct economic contributors to have an
influence on those that do. That has always been the case since we had
to raise them, but now more so because of the new economy this Internet
thing is birthing.

For the last 8 or so years, I've resisted my wife's persistent pressures
to get the kids a phone. They are now going to be 13, and I promised
them phones when they either turn 20, or go to work and earn their own
cash to buy their own phones if they want them sooner than that. I feel
I had a handle on that for as long as I can remember, but in this
hyper-connected world where school assignments are sent via e-mail, I
may have to give in sooner than I planned :-\. Ah well, I had a good run
:-).


>  That rather,
> it is the very large corporations and their ability to leverage big data and 
> the
> surveillance economy for fun and profit that are driving this.

I won't argue with you there.


> I will admit that 4-5 year olds are probably the most likely demographic to
> have no inkling as to what giving up their personal data means. I suppose
> rather like tobacco companies that getting them hooked in young does serve
> as a competitive advantage.

Haha, you place plenty of faith in the adult public.

Almost everyone that I know who has no idea about how the Internet works
(or cares to), will click "Yes", "OK", "Submit", "Proceed" without
hesitation, just so that they can start using that app immediately.

Where you and I may care why Apple will automatically sync. call logs
between devices signed into the same iCloud account - and maybe even
detest it - the majority of the adult population will see that as a
convenience, as they can then remember who they called when, just by
looking at any device.


> I wouldn’t know. I’m not a subscriber and not particularly interested in any 
> of their
> products.

Fair enough.

Again, my view is not a personal one, but rather, what the wider world
is doing.


>  As I said, I wish I could get the local $CABLECO to turn off my “access
> to local sports” and stop charging me a monthly fee for something I don’t 
> want.

Sounds like you should, as some like to say these days, "Cut the cord" :-).


> All genders seem to be relatively equally represented. Age range is probably
> about 7-25. Here, it seems there are as many female sports fans as  male
> among the younger crowds.

That's interesting. It's not the sense I get in Africa (or in Asia-Pac,
when I lived there). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying women aren't
into sports, I'm saying my observation on this side is not as much as men.

I wonder if the female sports lovers in the U.S. mostly gravitate toward
a single sport, or if that is evenly spread across the sport spectrum.


> Sure, they’re all desperate to try and find a way to preserve their revenue
> stream.

Being an F1 fan, Mercedes and Red Bull are now manufacturing breathing
aids to help with Coronavirus patients. Talk about that ugly "business
strategy" word I hate to use - pivoting :-).

No industry is safe.


> Perhaps Twitch won the lottery as professional sports may be forced to move
> to remote competition via gaming consoles. :(
>
> I tend to doubt it as I think fans will find other things to do rather than 
> make
> the migration.

Yes and no.

I think traditional fans that like to enter stadia or go to the track
will find other things to do because they are purists.

But there are plenty of kids that are into gaming, play 

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mar 31, 2020, at 03:47 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 23/Mar/20 22:54, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> 
>> That hasn’t been my observation at any of the local sports bars. I
>> actually have little to no interest in live sport (except maybe the
>> occasional curling match, yeah, I’m not just old, I’m odd).
> 
> I think we each need to define what we mean by "the kids" :-).

From my perspective, anyone born in this century pretty much qualifies as
a kid at this point. Maybe even the last 3-4 years of the previous one.

>> Live sport seems quite popular among kids and millennials, at least in
>> the US.
> 
> Yes, but as a proportion of those who drive how the Internet is
> re-defining traditional economies, how does that track?

Don’t know. Not a statistician, not a gatherer of demographic information.

I’ll leave that to those in the business of the surveillance economy which seems
to be the primary way in which the internet is redefining traditional economies.

Turning consumers into products. Personally, not a fan and I think GDPR is
a sure sign that there is a backlash coming. The main reason it is tolerated
so far is most people aren’t aware of what it really means or even that it
is actually happening.

>> From an African perspective, my anecdotal observation is that it is
> mostly really young kids (you're talking from as little as 4 - 5 years
> old) and women (both young and old) that are influencing this "I don't
> care about how it all works, just get me my value" paradigm that is the
> new economy. And in both cases, the majority of them don't have a
> penchant for sport, live or on-demand. Much of that is relegated mostly
> to men, from early-teen boys all the way to us geezers, a demographic
> that, in my observation, don't use the Internet as dynamically as "the
> kids" and women.

4-5 year olds don’t define the economy today and likely won’t have significant
input into it for at least 10-11 years.

My observation is that they are _NOT_ the ones influencing this. That rather,
it is the very large corporations and their ability to leverage big data and the
surveillance economy for fun and profit that are driving this.

I will admit that 4-5 year olds are probably the most likely demographic to
have no inkling as to what giving up their personal data means. I suppose
rather like tobacco companies that getting them hooked in young does serve
as a competitive advantage.

>> Personally, I wish I could stop paying the “fee for access to local
>> sports” that my linear provider charges every month.
> 
> Africa's primary sports broadcaster, amazingly, includes access to all
> sports, games and matches (regardless of their significance) as part of
> the flat monthly subscription fee. Whether your poison is boxing, motor
> racing, football (American and soccer), basketball, the Olympics,
> baseball, rally cross, iron man, e.t.c., local and international. They
> do not have a pay-per-view concept yet. It is something they are
> considering as a way to keep themselves relevant in a VoD world, but for
> now (and since ever), all major and minor sports events come for no
> additional cost.

I wouldn’t know. I’m not a subscriber and not particularly interested in any of 
their
products. As I said, I wish I could get the local $CABLECO to turn off my 
“access
to local sports” and stop charging me a monthly fee for something I don’t want.

>> Nonetheless, the younger people around me supposedly driving this new
>> economy seem very focused on their love of live sports.
> 
> Would be interesting to know what age these "younger people" are, and if
> they are male or female. I've found the gender does actually matter,
> when it comes to watching sports.

All genders seem to be relatively equally represented. Age range is probably
about 7-25. Here, it seems there are as many female sports fans as  male
among the younger crowds.

>> Well, for the moment, live sports aren’t happening, at least locally,
>> so how to televise them isn’t exactly an issue.
> 
> We all agree on that - but almost every sports event considered (until
> the rolling lockdowns) how they can continue their events with some
> combination of the Internet in play.

Sure, they’re all desperate to try and find a way to preserve their revenue
stream.

> The thing with sport, though, is that participants have to play. No
> players, no event. So even if there was a good solution to moving sports
> to the new economy, scenarios like the Coronavirus keeps players off the
> playing field. That doesn't mean that outside of these extreme cases,
> sports organizers aren't considering how to use the new economy,
> especially when those driving it will have far more influence on it,
> than traditional sports lovers.

Perhaps Twitch won the lottery as professional sports may be forced to move
to remote competition via gaming consoles. :(

I tend to doubt it as I think fans will find other things to do rather than make
the migration.

>> I don’t think 

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Mark Tinka]

On 23/Mar/20 22:54, Owen DeLong wrote:

>
> That hasn’t been my observation at any of the local sports bars. I
> actually have little to no interest in live sport (except maybe the
> occasional curling match, yeah, I’m not just old, I’m odd).

I think we each need to define what we mean by "the kids" :-).


>
> Live sport seems quite popular among kids and millennials, at least in
> the US.

Yes, but as a proportion of those who drive how the Internet is
re-defining traditional economies, how does that track?

From an African perspective, my anecdotal observation is that it is
mostly really young kids (you're talking from as little as 4 - 5 years
old) and women (both young and old) that are influencing this "I don't
care about how it all works, just get me my value" paradigm that is the
new economy. And in both cases, the majority of them don't have a
penchant for sport, live or on-demand. Much of that is relegated mostly
to men, from early-teen boys all the way to us geezers, a demographic
that, in my observation, don't use the Internet as dynamically as "the
kids" and women.


>
> Personally, I wish I could stop paying the “fee for access to local
> sports” that my linear provider charges every month.

Africa's primary sports broadcaster, amazingly, includes access to all
sports, games and matches (regardless of their significance) as part of
the flat monthly subscription fee. Whether your poison is boxing, motor
racing, football (American and soccer), basketball, the Olympics,
baseball, rally cross, iron man, e.t.c., local and international. They
do not have a pay-per-view concept yet. It is something they are
considering as a way to keep themselves relevant in a VoD world, but for
now (and since ever), all major and minor sports events come for no
additional cost.


> Nonetheless, the younger people around me supposedly driving this new
> economy seem very focused on their love of live sports.

Would be interesting to know what age these "younger people" are, and if
they are male or female. I've found the gender does actually matter,
when it comes to watching sports.


> Well, for the moment, live sports aren’t happening, at least locally,
> so how to televise them isn’t exactly an issue.

We all agree on that - but almost every sports event considered (until
the rolling lockdowns) how they can continue their events with some
combination of the Internet in play.

The thing with sport, though, is that participants have to play. No
players, no event. So even if there was a good solution to moving sports
to the new economy, scenarios like the Coronavirus keeps players off the
playing field. That doesn't mean that outside of these extreme cases,
sports organizers aren't considering how to use the new economy,
especially when those driving it will have far more influence on it,
than traditional sports lovers.


> I don’t think eSports will replace traditional sports,

And they were never meant to. Just like Formula-E and Formula One, it's
just another avenue open to those who are interested. It's not meant to
replace what the petrol heads like.


> I think that for now, the sports organizations facing a sudden and
> dramatic loss of revenue and progressively more distressed fans are
> grasping at straws to find ways to keep their fans engaged, hoping for
> a near-term return to normal revenue activities. Remains to be seen
> how well that will work.

And that is the new economy that the Coronavirus has amplified and
accelerated. Listen to your customer, engage them, and offer value (not
product). Every industry is affected. No one is immune. Old, traditional
models, as sensible as they seem, are going to be challenged, and a ton
of them will simply disappear.

For every call we make to Google Maps to get us from point A to B, there
is a shop selling an atlas that is going out of business. You can't
blame the Google, or the user, for that.


>
> These have already been tried in a variety of ways, usually with
> limited success.

My advice is use the little time and money you have now to experiment
with new models. 99% execution, 1% strategy; not the other way around.
Don't wait until all the money and time runs out to experiment, and then
you don't have any left of either.


>
> This idea that things can cost zero is the most frustrating part. I’m
> so tired of not being able to buy apps instead of rent them. I’m fed
> up to here with apps that come with ridiculous loads of advertising.
> This shift from an ownership economy to a rental economy is terrible
> and I wish that we could somehow educate the kids on how much more it
> actually costs them.
>
> Possibly the worst artifact is the “If you’re not paying, you’re the
> product” and the number of millennials that view the surveillance
> economy with a kind of “Yeah, so what? Privacy is so 1990.” attitude.

The folk on this list understand how it all works, which is why we
either don't have Alexa in our homes and seal our laptop microphones and
cameras 

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mar 23, 2020, at 10:14 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 23/Mar/20 05:51, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> 
>> How do you see that happening? Are people going to stop wanting to watch 
>> live,
>> or are teams going to somehow play asynchronously (e.g. Lakers vs. Celtics,
>> the Lakers play on November 5 at 6 PM and the Celtics play on November 8
>> at 11 AM)?
>> 
>> Further, it would be more accurate to say that events with large live 
>> audiences
>> are the only thing propping up the “old economy” and sport is probably by far
>> the largest current application of live streaming.
> 
> I'll admit, this is not an easy one to solve.
> 
> The problem you have is the kids who are driving the new economy have little 
> to no interest in live sport. Old timers like ourselves still like watching 
> live sport, and even better, betting on it for those who consider that an 
> extra sport of sport. The kids are not into all of that, and despite the 
> growth of online sporting conventions (eSports, Fortnite tournaments, Twitch 
> binging, e.t.c.), it doesn't even register as a rounding-error on the balance 
> sheets of the traditional sports establishment. To you pysch. majors, that 
> means, "We - the old guard - don't care about any of that :-)”.

That hasn’t been my observation at any of the local sports bars. I actually 
have little to no interest in live sport (except maybe the occasional curling 
match, yeah, I’m not just old, I’m odd).

Live sport seems quite popular among kids and millennials, at least in the US.

> Linear TV networks know that most homes moving to VoD would prefer a 
> sports-only package, so that they can pick that up from them and keep movies 
> and series on VoD. However, the linear TV networks are leveraging that to 
> keep pushing their traditional bouquets because then they have the 
> justification to "charge that little bit extra" in order to deliver all the 
> other content that sits side-by-side with sports.

Personally, I wish I could stop paying the “fee for access to local sports” 
that my linear provider charges every month. Nonetheless, the younger people 
around me supposedly driving this new economy seem very focused on their love 
of live sports.

> As I've been saying before, the Coronavirus has amplified and accelerated the 
> realization that the old economy will not survive in this new digital era. As 
> this applies to sport, Formula One have cancelled a heap of grand prix 
> weekends this season, but this has forced them to, for the first time, hold 
> eSports options, just this week:
> 
> 
> https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/03/23/zhou-wins-virtual-bahrain-grand-prix/ 
> 
> 
> Is that a sign of things to come, yes and no. "No" in that there is simply 
> too much money with the traditional setup to put aside for the bigger 
> picture, but "Yes" in that during times like these, there might be way for 
> folk to get their fix, unless you are a  purist. But even then, how long can 
> you hold out for if another pandemic in 20 years loses us 2 whole years?

Well, for the moment, live sports aren’t happening, at least locally, so how to 
televise them isn’t exactly an issue. I don’t think eSports will replace 
traditional sports, I think that for now, the sports organizations facing a 
sudden and dramatic loss of revenue and progressively more distressed fans are 
grasping at straws to find ways to keep their fans engaged, hoping for a 
near-term return to normal revenue activities. Remains to be seen how well that 
will work.

> One could speak of hybrid solutions where you watch linear TV, but then 
> engage with the match/program online. In 2013, I saw a number of equipment 
> vendors developing walled-garden solutions around this, and it was great. But 
> as we all know, the kids gravitate to simpler solutions that offer obvious 
> value, are downloadable from a public market store, and cost zero. So now, 
> watching anything on TV means engaging via Twitter, not via some 
> walled-garden app only open to a few, ships with a price tag, and crashes 
> more than it is usable.

These have already been tried in a variety of ways, usually with limited 
success.

This idea that things can cost zero is the most frustrating part. I’m so tired 
of not being able to buy apps instead of rent them. I’m fed up to here with 
apps that come with ridiculous loads of advertising.
This shift from an ownership economy to a rental economy is terrible and I wish 
that we could somehow educate the kids on how much more it actually costs them.

Possibly the worst artifact is the “If you’re not paying, you’re the product” 
and the number of millennials that view the surveillance economy with a kind of 
“Yeah, so what? Privacy is so 1990.” attitude.


> Where all the VoD providers are letting linear TV networks keep running away 
> with this model is by all of them chasing us to give them our US$10/month for 

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Thank you for the update.

The rural usage peaking at 1600 (instead of 2000-24000) sounds as a 
relevant indicator, I think.


It sounds as a shock ('in the middle of the day'), but it is a wave.  
People spot it from a distance, and you do have time.  There are levels 
of 'stay home', increasingly restrictive, separated by days.


It's not like the tsunami hitting Fukushima, and nothing like 9/11 shock.

Ohio borders Pennsylvania and further NYC who is in a level of emergency 
state - cant get into Manhattan.  Ohio is not in the MidWest, and there 
were earlier claims that MidWest might not be affected - I dont know.


If trust there is.

The communnication channels must stay up.

Yours,

Alex, LF/HF 3

Le 23/03/2020 à 15:01, Josh Luthman a écrit :
I'm in Ohio.  Dewine announced a stay at home order in the middle of 
the day.


Our uplink that feeds more urban customers, kept increasing as per 
usual.  Our uplink that feeds exclusively rural customers, leveled out 
- the usage peaked at 1600!!!  I'd never seen it not peak at 2000-2400 
at night.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 6:19 AM Alexandre Petrescu 
mailto:alexandre.petre...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:



Le 23/03/2020 à 04:05, Aaron Gould a écrit :
> I can see it now Business driver that moved the world
towards multicast  2020 Coronavirus


I should abstain from writing about this but I think the situation of
virus with a crown version year 2020 is not yet understood on
business.

There are signs business would work as before: business challenges
that
we know worked are now tested with sponsoring open source projects on
3D-printed ventilators (respirator).

Other signs I see seem to differ: same kind of projects but not
looking
for money.  That might not amount for 'business' but might save lives
equally well.

It is not clear to me where it is heading to, probably a mix of
the two.

And it is not clear to me where multicast might fit into this,
because
presumably an Internet-connected ventilator might not have much
data to
send, depending of course, if one wants to put a measurement
device on
another side of the planet and the breath on one side, and the air
pressure might need to be transmitted instantaneously, like 'remote
surgery' needs to transmit haptic feedback effect across long
distances.

It's all hypothesis and speculation from my part.

Alex, LF/HF 3

>
> Also, I wonder how much money would be lost by big pipe
providers with multicast working everywhere
>
> -Aaron
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org
<mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org>] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 3:41 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: Sunday traffic curiosity
>
>
> Le 22/03/2020 à 21:31, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
>> Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote on 22/03/2020 19:17:
>>> What was wrong with Internet scale multicast? Why did it get
abandoned?
>> there wasn't any problem with inter-domain multicast that
couldn't be
>> resolved by handing over to level 3 engineering and the vendor's
>> support escalation team.
>>
>> But then again, there weren't many problems with inter-domain
>> multicast that could be resolved without handing over to level 3
>> engineering and the vendor's support escalation team.
>>
>> Nick
> For my part I speculate multicast did not take off at any level
(inter
> domain, intra domain) because pipes grew larger (more bandwidth)
faster
> than uses ever needed.  Even now, I dont hear problems of
bandwidth from
> some end users, like friends using netflix.  I do hear in media that
> there _might_ be an issue of capacity, but I did not hear that
from end
> users.
>
> On another hand, link-local multicast does seem to work ok, at least
> with IPv6.  The problem it solves there is not related to the
width of
> the pipe, but more to resistance against 'storms' that were
witnessed
> during ARP storms.  I could guess that Ethernet pipes are now so
large
> they could accomodate many forms of ARP storms, but for one
reason or
> another IPv6 ND has multicast and no broadcast.  It might even be a
> problem in the name, in that it is named 'IPv6 multicast ND' but
> underlying is often implemented with pure broadcast and local
filters.
>
> If the capacity is reached and if end users need more, then
there are
> two alternative solutions: grow capacity unicast (e.g. 1Tb

RE: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Keith Medcalf]

On Monday, 23 March, 2020 04:19, Alexandre Petrescu 
 wrote:

> ... like  'remote surgery' needs to transmit haptic feedback effect across 
> long distances.

Personally, if I were asked to give consent for surgery and it contained a risk 
"the communications uses the Internet for transport and the Internet is a 
best-effort only communications method" I would not consent.  And in this 
jurisdiction, it would be unlawful to fail to disclose that risk.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Mark Tinka]

On 23/Mar/20 12:18, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

>
> I should abstain from writing about this but I think the situation of
> virus with a crown version year 2020 is not yet understood on business.
>
> There are signs business would work as before: business challenges
> that we know worked are now tested with sponsoring open source
> projects on 3D-printed ventilators (respirator).
>
> Other signs I see seem to differ: same kind of projects but not
> looking for money.  That might not amount for 'business' but might
> save lives equally well.
>
> It is not clear to me where it is heading to, probably a mix of the two.

It's going to be a battle between putting capitalism marginally aside
and keeping humanity a going concern.

I laugh when I see the news and hear some countries talking about how
they are first to do this and the first do that, or the first to help
this and the first to help, or the first to discover this and the first
to discover that re: the Coronavirus. Okay, you're the first, and then
what? What good is you being #1 if I am too poor or too dead to buy any
of your #1'ness? But I digress.

The world has been at 100% speed since 2010. This "forced leave" should
be used as a great opportunity to slow down, take a step back, and think
about what REALLY matters.

The companies that will survive and do well in the new economy (during
and post-Coronavirus) are not the ones that can gain the most profit,
but the ones that can gain the most profit while actually caring about
humanity, and offering real value (which = individual + company-wide
fulfillment)

Nothing against Mr. Gates, but let's not wait until we are 60+ to
realize all the billions we've made can actually make meaningful,
valuable difference, on a large scale.

#ProfitAndFulfillmentIsTheNewGame

>
> And it is not clear to me where multicast might fit into this, because
> presumably an Internet-connected ventilator might not have much data
> to send, depending of course, if one wants to put a measurement device
> on another side of the planet and the breath on one side, and the air
> pressure might need to be transmitted instantaneously, like  'remote
> surgery' needs to transmit haptic feedback effect across long distances.

I honestly don't think Multicast features anywhere on today's public
Internet.

Mark.

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Mark Tinka]

On 23/Mar/20 05:51, Owen DeLong wrote:


> How do you see that happening? Are people going to stop wanting to watch live,
> or are teams going to somehow play asynchronously (e.g. Lakers vs. Celtics,
> the Lakers play on November 5 at 6 PM and the Celtics play on November 8
> at 11 AM)?
>
> Further, it would be more accurate to say that events with large live 
> audiences
> are the only thing propping up the “old economy” and sport is probably by far
> the largest current application of live streaming.

I'll admit, this is not an easy one to solve.

The problem you have is the kids who are driving the new economy have
little to no interest in live sport. Old timers like ourselves still
like watching live sport, and even better, betting on it for those who
consider that an extra sport of sport. The kids are not into all of
that, and despite the growth of online sporting conventions (eSports,
Fortnite tournaments, Twitch binging, e.t.c.), it doesn't even register
as a rounding-error on the balance sheets of the traditional sports
establishment. To you pysch. majors, that means, "We - the old guard -
don't care about any of that :-)".

Linear TV networks know that most homes moving to VoD would prefer a
sports-only package, so that they can pick that up from them and keep
movies and series on VoD. However, the linear TV networks are leveraging
that to keep pushing their traditional bouquets because then they have
the justification to "charge that little bit extra" in order to deliver
all the other content that sits side-by-side with sports.

As I've been saying before, the Coronavirus has amplified and
accelerated the realization that the old economy will not survive in
this new digital era. As this applies to sport, Formula One have
cancelled a heap of grand prix weekends this season, but this has forced
them to, for the first time, hold eSports options, just this week:

   
https://www.grandprix247.com/2020/03/23/zhou-wins-virtual-bahrain-grand-prix/

Is that a sign of things to come, yes and no. "No" in that there is
simply too much money with the traditional setup to put aside for the
bigger picture, but "Yes" in that during times like these, there might
be way for folk to get their fix, unless you are a  purist. But even
then, how long can you hold out for if another pandemic in 20 years
loses us 2 whole years?

One could speak of hybrid solutions where you watch linear TV, but then
engage with the match/program online. In 2013, I saw a number of
equipment vendors developing walled-garden solutions around this, and it
was great. But as we all know, the kids gravitate to simpler solutions
that offer obvious value, are downloadable from a public market store,
and cost zero. So now, watching anything on TV means engaging via
Twitter, not via some walled-garden app only open to a few, ships with a
price tag, and crashes more than it is usable.

In South Africa, our incumbent pay-TV provider is trialing offering some
pre-dated sports content (amongst other channels) available for free
(and only) online, as streamed live TV:

   
http://www.capetalk.co.za/articles/378021/dstv-offers-free-channels-and-shows-for-south-africans-while-staying-at-home

This is both on the back of the Coronavirus, but also to trial options
to satisfy those who don't want all the channels they offer, but just
sports.

Where all the VoD providers are letting linear TV networks keep running
away with this model is by all of them chasing us to give them our
US$10/month for what they feel is the killer VoD service in the world.
As I've mentioned before on this list, consumer fatigue due to the
"yet-another-new-VoD-provider-today" syndrome is growing. For as long as
each VoD provider is competing for our business, linear TV will remain
relevant because it's easier and cheaper for a consumer to give a linear
TV provider one cheque that covers a variety of channels, vs. paying
US$10/month for every VoD provider. And now major sports events and/or
channels are also in the VoD game, each of them also charging
US$10/month. It starts to add up pretty quick, and in the end, the case
for linear TV is only strengthened.

If linear TV is going to enter the new economy (especially to hit the
kids), current VoD services are going to have to figure out how to
aggregate. And if they don't, we all know who the one left standing is
more likely to be :-).

So let's keep watching this "linear TV for sports" thing develop. I hope
to provide better insight in about a year :-).


>
> Remember, this discussion started with a question about live-streaming church
> services.
>
> In the “new normal” of a COVID lockdown world, with the huge increase in
> teleconferencing, etc. there may well be additional audiences for many-to-many
> multicast that aren’t currently implemented.
>
> IMO, the only sane way to do this also helps solve the v4/v6 conferencing 
> question.
>
> Local Aggregation Points (LAPs) are anycast customer terminations. Backbone 
> between
> 

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Josh Luthman]

I'm in Ohio.  Dewine announced a stay at home order in the middle of the
day.

Our uplink that feeds more urban customers, kept increasing as per usual.
Our uplink that feeds exclusively rural customers, leveled out - the usage
peaked at 1600!!!  I'd never seen it not peak at 2000-2400 at night.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 6:19 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Le 23/03/2020 à 04:05, Aaron Gould a écrit :
> > I can see it now Business driver that moved the world towards
> multicast  2020 Coronavirus
>
>
> I should abstain from writing about this but I think the situation of
> virus with a crown version year 2020 is not yet understood on business.
>
> There are signs business would work as before: business challenges that
> we know worked are now tested with sponsoring open source projects on
> 3D-printed ventilators (respirator).
>
> Other signs I see seem to differ: same kind of projects but not looking
> for money.  That might not amount for 'business' but might save lives
> equally well.
>
> It is not clear to me where it is heading to, probably a mix of the two.
>
> And it is not clear to me where multicast might fit into this, because
> presumably an Internet-connected ventilator might not have much data to
> send, depending of course, if one wants to put a measurement device on
> another side of the planet and the breath on one side, and the air
> pressure might need to be transmitted instantaneously, like  'remote
> surgery' needs to transmit haptic feedback effect across long distances.
>
> It's all hypothesis and speculation from my part.
>
> Alex, LF/HF 3
>
> >
> > Also, I wonder how much money would be lost by big pipe providers with
> multicast working everywhere
> >
> > -Aaron
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre
> Petrescu
> > Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 3:41 PM
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: Sunday traffic curiosity
> >
> >
> > Le 22/03/2020 à 21:31, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
> >> Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote on 22/03/2020 19:17:
> >>> What was wrong with Internet scale multicast?  Why did it get
> abandoned?
> >> there wasn't any problem with inter-domain multicast that couldn't be
> >> resolved by handing over to level 3 engineering and the vendor's
> >> support escalation team.
> >>
> >> But then again, there weren't many problems with inter-domain
> >> multicast that could be resolved without handing over to level 3
> >> engineering and the vendor's support escalation team.
> >>
> >> Nick
> > For my part I speculate multicast did not take off at any level (inter
> > domain, intra domain) because pipes grew larger (more bandwidth) faster
> > than uses ever needed.  Even now, I dont hear problems of bandwidth from
> > some end users, like friends using netflix.  I do hear in media that
> > there _might_ be an issue of capacity, but I did not hear that from end
> > users.
> >
> > On another hand, link-local multicast does seem to work ok, at least
> > with IPv6.  The problem it solves there is not related to the width of
> > the pipe, but more to resistance against 'storms' that were witnessed
> > during ARP storms.  I could guess that Ethernet pipes are now so large
> > they could accomodate many forms of ARP storms, but for one reason or
> > another IPv6 ND has multicast and no broadcast.  It might even be a
> > problem in the name, in that it is named 'IPv6 multicast ND' but
> > underlying is often implemented with pure broadcast and local filters.
> >
> > If the capacity is reached and if end users need more, then there are
> > two alternative solutions: grow capacity unicast (e.g. 1Tb/s Ethernet)
> > or multicast; it's useless to do both.  If we cant do 1 Tb/s Ethernet
> > ('apocalypse'  was called by some?) then we'll do multicast.
> >
> > I think,
> >
> > Alex, LF/HF 3
> >
> >
>

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 23/03/2020 à 04:05, Aaron Gould a écrit :

I can see it now Business driver that moved the world towards multicast 
 2020 Coronavirus



I should abstain from writing about this but I think the situation of 
virus with a crown version year 2020 is not yet understood on business.


There are signs business would work as before: business challenges that 
we know worked are now tested with sponsoring open source projects on 
3D-printed ventilators (respirator).


Other signs I see seem to differ: same kind of projects but not looking 
for money.  That might not amount for 'business' but might save lives 
equally well.


It is not clear to me where it is heading to, probably a mix of the two.

And it is not clear to me where multicast might fit into this, because 
presumably an Internet-connected ventilator might not have much data to 
send, depending of course, if one wants to put a measurement device on 
another side of the planet and the breath on one side, and the air 
pressure might need to be transmitted instantaneously, like  'remote 
surgery' needs to transmit haptic feedback effect across long distances.


It's all hypothesis and speculation from my part.

Alex, LF/HF 3



Also, I wonder how much money would be lost by big pipe providers with 
multicast working everywhere

-Aaron

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 3:41 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Sunday traffic curiosity


Le 22/03/2020 à 21:31, Nick Hilliard a écrit :

Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote on 22/03/2020 19:17:

What was wrong with Internet scale multicast?  Why did it get abandoned?

there wasn't any problem with inter-domain multicast that couldn't be
resolved by handing over to level 3 engineering and the vendor's
support escalation team.

But then again, there weren't many problems with inter-domain
multicast that could be resolved without handing over to level 3
engineering and the vendor's support escalation team.

Nick

For my part I speculate multicast did not take off at any level (inter
domain, intra domain) because pipes grew larger (more bandwidth) faster
than uses ever needed.  Even now, I dont hear problems of bandwidth from
some end users, like friends using netflix.  I do hear in media that
there _might_ be an issue of capacity, but I did not hear that from end
users.

On another hand, link-local multicast does seem to work ok, at least
with IPv6.  The problem it solves there is not related to the width of
the pipe, but more to resistance against 'storms' that were witnessed
during ARP storms.  I could guess that Ethernet pipes are now so large
they could accomodate many forms of ARP storms, but for one reason or
another IPv6 ND has multicast and no broadcast.  It might even be a
problem in the name, in that it is named 'IPv6 multicast ND' but
underlying is often implemented with pure broadcast and local filters.

If the capacity is reached and if end users need more, then there are
two alternative solutions: grow capacity unicast (e.g. 1Tb/s Ethernet)
or multicast; it's useless to do both.  If we cant do 1 Tb/s Ethernet
('apocalypse'  was called by some?) then we'll do multicast.

I think,

Alex, LF/HF 3

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Mark Tinka]

On 23/Mar/20 05:05, Aaron Gould wrote:
> I can see it now Business driver that moved the world towards multicast 
>  2020 Coronavirus

Hehe, the Coronavirus has only accelerated and amplified what was
already coming - the new economy.

You're constantly hearing about "changing business models" or "needing
to be agile" in the face of the Coronavirus. A few businesses saw this
and switched from product to value, years ago. Many feel it in their
bones but are too afraid to make the switch. The rest don't see it at
all and are wondering what the heck is going on. I empathize.


> Also, I wonder how much money would be lost by big pipe providers with 
> multicast working everywhere

Money is going to be lost, for sure, but not to Multicast. That tech. is
dead & gone.

Mark.

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Hugo Slabbert]

>
> But that’s already happening. All big content providers are doing just
> that. They even sponsor you the appliance(s) to make more money and save on
> transit costs ;)


Noted; this was a comment on what's already the case, not a proposal for
how to address it instead.  Apologies as I used poor phrasing here.

-- 
Hugo Slabbert   | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com
pgp key: B178313E   | also on Signal


On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 6:45 PM Łukasz Bromirski 
wrote:

> Hugo,
>
> > On 23 Mar 2020, at 01:32, Hugo Slabbert  wrote:
> >
> > I think that's the thing:
> > Drop cache boxes inside eyeball networks; fill the caches during
> off-peak; unicast from the cache boxes inside the eyeball provider's
> network to subscribers.  Do a single stream from source to each
> "replication point" (cache box) rather than a stream per ultimate receiver
> from the source, then a unicast stream per ultimate receiver from their
> selected "replication point".  You solve the administrative control problem
> since the "replication point" is an appliance just getting power &
> connectivity from the connectivity service provider, with the appliance
> remaining under the administrative control of the content provider.
>
> But that’s already happening. All big content providers are doing just
> that. They even sponsor you the appliance(s) to make more money and save on
> transit costs ;)
>
> —
> ./

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mar 22, 2020, at 15:49 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 23/Mar/20 00:19, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
>> 
>> add to that it is the TV model in a VOD world.  works for sports, maybe,
>> not for netflix
> 
> Agreed - on-demand is the new economy, and sport is the single thing
> still propping up the old economy.
> 
> When sport eventually makes into the new world, linear TV would have
> lost its last legs.

How do you see that happening? Are people going to stop wanting to watch live,
or are teams going to somehow play asynchronously (e.g. Lakers vs. Celtics,
the Lakers play on November 5 at 6 PM and the Celtics play on November 8
at 11 AM)?

Further, it would be more accurate to say that events with large live audiences
are the only thing propping up the “old economy” and sport is probably by far
the largest current application of live streaming.

Remember, this discussion started with a question about live-streaming church
services.

In the “new normal” of a COVID lockdown world, with the huge increase in
teleconferencing, etc. there may well be additional audiences for many-to-many
multicast that aren’t currently implemented.

IMO, the only sane way to do this also helps solve the v4/v6 conferencing 
question.

Local Aggregation Points (LAPs) are anycast customer terminations. Backbone 
between
LAPs supports IPv6-only and IPv6 multicast (intra-domain only). LAPs are not 
sharing
routing table space with backbone routers. Likely some tunnel mechanism is used 
to
link LAPs to each other to shield backbone routers from multicast state 
information.

Each “session” (whether an individual chat, group chat, etc.) gets a unique IPv6
multicast group. Each LAP with at least one user logged into a given session 
will
join that multicast group across the backbone. Users connects to LAPs via 
unicast.
If voice, video, slide, chat streams need to be separated, use different port 
numbers
to do that.

IPv4 nat traversal for the IPv4-only clients is left as an exercise for the 
reader.

Owen

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Owen DeLong]

> On Mar 22, 2020, at 13:41 , Alexandre Petrescu  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 22/03/2020 à 21:31, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
>> Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote on 22/03/2020 19:17:
>>> What was wrong with Internet scale multicast?  Why did it get abandoned?
>> 
>> there wasn't any problem with inter-domain multicast that couldn't be 
>> resolved by handing over to level 3 engineering and the vendor's support 
>> escalation team.
>> 
>> But then again, there weren't many problems with inter-domain multicast that 
>> could be resolved without handing over to level 3 engineering and the 
>> vendor's support escalation team.
>> 
>> Nick
> 
> For my part I speculate multicast did not take off at any level (inter 
> domain, intra domain) because pipes grew larger (more bandwidth) faster than 
> uses ever needed.  Even now, I dont hear problems of bandwidth from some end 
> users, like friends using netflix.  I do hear in media that there _might_ be 
> an issue of capacity, but I did not hear that from end users.
> 
> On another hand, link-local multicast does seem to work ok, at least with 
> IPv6.  The problem it solves there is not related to the width of the pipe, 
> but more to resistance against 'storms' that were witnessed during ARP 
> storms.  I could guess that Ethernet pipes are now so large they could 
> accomodate many forms of ARP storms, but for one reason or another IPv6 ND 
> has multicast and no broadcast.  It might even be a problem in the name, in 
> that it is named 'IPv6 multicast ND' but underlying is often implemented with 
> pure broadcast and local filters.

In most cases, though “local” filters, they are filters at the hardware 
interface level and don’t bother the OS, so… WIN!

Also, in most cases, the solicited node address will likely be representative 
of an extremely small number of nodes on the network (very likely 1) so the 
number of CPUs that have to look at each NS packet is greatly reduced… WIN!

Reducing the network traffic to just the ports that need to receive it is a 
pretty small win, but reducing the CPUs that have to look at it and determine 
“Nope, not for me.” is a relatively larger win. If the host properly implements 
IGMP
joins and the switch does correct IGMP snooping, we get both. If not, we still 
get the CPU win.

> If the capacity is reached and if end users need more, then there are two 
> alternative solutions: grow capacity unicast (e.g. 1Tb/s Ethernet) or 
> multicast; it's useless to do both.  If we cant do 1 Tb/s Ethernet 
> ('apocalypse'  was called by some?) then we'll do multicast.

My inter domain multicast comment was largely tongue in cheek and was never 
intended as a serious proposal.

There are a plethora of issues with inter domain multicast including, but not 
limited to the fact that it’s a great way to invite smurf-style attacks (after 
all, smurfing is what mcast groups are intended to do).

Owen

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[james jones]

I know Facebook live had some congestion/capacity issues in some geographical 
regions this AM. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 22, 2020, at 2:59 PM, Andy Ringsmuth  wrote:
> 
> Fellow NANOGers,
> 
> Not a big deal by any means, but for those of you who have traffic data, I’m 
> curious what Sunday morning looked like as compared to other Sundays. Sure, 
> Netflix and similar companies have no doubt seen traffic increase, but I’m 
> wondering if an influx of church service streaming was substantial enough to 
> cause a noticeable traffic increase.
> 
> We livestream our services and have been for about a year or so, but normally 
> average just a handful of viewers. Today, we were around 150 watching live.
> 
> 
> Andy Ringsmuth
> a...@andyring.com
> 

RE: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Aaron Gould]

I can see it now Business driver that moved the world towards multicast 
 2020 Coronavirus

Also, I wonder how much money would be lost by big pipe providers with 
multicast working everywhere

-Aaron

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 3:41 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Sunday traffic curiosity


Le 22/03/2020 à 21:31, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
> Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote on 22/03/2020 19:17:
>> What was wrong with Internet scale multicast?  Why did it get abandoned?
>
> there wasn't any problem with inter-domain multicast that couldn't be 
> resolved by handing over to level 3 engineering and the vendor's 
> support escalation team.
>
> But then again, there weren't many problems with inter-domain 
> multicast that could be resolved without handing over to level 3 
> engineering and the vendor's support escalation team.
>
> Nick

For my part I speculate multicast did not take off at any level (inter 
domain, intra domain) because pipes grew larger (more bandwidth) faster 
than uses ever needed.  Even now, I dont hear problems of bandwidth from 
some end users, like friends using netflix.  I do hear in media that 
there _might_ be an issue of capacity, but I did not hear that from end 
users.

On another hand, link-local multicast does seem to work ok, at least 
with IPv6.  The problem it solves there is not related to the width of 
the pipe, but more to resistance against 'storms' that were witnessed 
during ARP storms.  I could guess that Ethernet pipes are now so large 
they could accomodate many forms of ARP storms, but for one reason or 
another IPv6 ND has multicast and no broadcast.  It might even be a 
problem in the name, in that it is named 'IPv6 multicast ND' but 
underlying is often implemented with pure broadcast and local filters.

If the capacity is reached and if end users need more, then there are 
two alternative solutions: grow capacity unicast (e.g. 1Tb/s Ethernet) 
or multicast; it's useless to do both.  If we cant do 1 Tb/s Ethernet 
('apocalypse'  was called by some?) then we'll do multicast.

I think,

Alex, LF/HF 3

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Łukasz Bromirski]

Hugo,

> On 23 Mar 2020, at 01:32, Hugo Slabbert  wrote:
> 
> I think that's the thing:
> Drop cache boxes inside eyeball networks; fill the caches during off-peak; 
> unicast from the cache boxes inside the eyeball provider's network to 
> subscribers.  Do a single stream from source to each "replication point" 
> (cache box) rather than a stream per ultimate receiver from the source, then 
> a unicast stream per ultimate receiver from their selected "replication 
> point".  You solve the administrative control problem since the "replication 
> point" is an appliance just getting power & connectivity from the 
> connectivity service provider, with the appliance remaining under the 
> administrative control of the content provider.

But that’s already happening. All big content providers are doing just that. 
They even sponsor you the appliance(s) to make more money and save on transit 
costs ;)

— 
./

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Hugo Slabbert]

I think that's the thing:
Drop cache boxes inside eyeball networks; fill the caches during off-peak;
unicast from the cache boxes inside the eyeball provider's network to
subscribers.  Do a single stream from source to each "replication point"
(cache box) rather than a stream per ultimate receiver from the source,
then a unicast stream per ultimate receiver from their selected
"replication point".  You solve the administrative control problem since
the "replication point" is an appliance just getting power & connectivity
from the connectivity service provider, with the appliance remaining under
the administrative control of the content provider.

It seems to be good enough to support business models pulling in billions
of dollars a year.

This does require the consumption of the media to be decoupled from the
original distribution of the content to the cache, obviously, hence the
live sports mismatch.  But it seems this catches enough of the use cases
and bandwidth demands, and to have won the "good enough" battle vs.
inter-domain multicast.

I would venture there are large percentage increases now in realtime use
cases as Zoom & friends take off more, but the bulk of the
anecdotal evidence thus far seems to indicate absolute traffic levels to
largely be below historical peaks from exceptional events (large
international content distribution events).

-- 
Hugo Slabbert   | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com
pgp key: B178313E   | also on Signal


On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 3:51 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 23/Mar/20 00:19, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >
> > add to that it is the TV model in a VOD world.  works for sports, maybe,
> > not for netflix
>
> Agreed - on-demand is the new economy, and sport is the single thing
> still propping up the old economy.
>
> When sport eventually makes into the new world, linear TV would have
> lost its last legs.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Mark Tinka]

On 23/Mar/20 00:19, Randy Bush wrote:

>
> add to that it is the TV model in a VOD world.  works for sports, maybe,
> not for netflix

Agreed - on-demand is the new economy, and sport is the single thing
still propping up the old economy.

When sport eventually makes into the new world, linear TV would have
lost its last legs.

Mark.

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Mark Tinka]

On 22/Mar/20 23:36, Valdis Kl ē tnieks wrote:

> It failed to scale for some of the exact same reasons QoS failed to scale -
> what works inside one administrative domain doesn't work once it crosses 
> domain
> boundaries.

This, for me, is one of the biggest reasons I feel inter-AS Multicast
does not work. Can you imagine trying to troubleshoot issues between two
or more separate networks?

At $previous_job, we carried and delivered IPTV streams from a head-end
that was under the domain of the broadcasting company. Co-ordination of
feed ingestion, e.t.c. got too complicated that we ended up agreeing to
take full management of the CE router. That isn't something you can
always expect; it worked for us because this was the first time it was
being done in the country.


>
> Plus, there's a lot more state to keep - if you think spanning tree gets ugly
> if the tree gets too big, think about what happens when the multicast covers
> 3,000 people in 117 ASN's, with people from multiple ASN's joining and leaving
> every few seconds.

We ran NG-MVPN which created plenty of RSVP-TE state in the core.

The next move to was migrate to mLDP just to simplify state management.
I'm not sure if the company ever did, as I had to leave.

Mark.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Randy Bush]

> It failed to scale for some of the exact same reasons QoS failed to
> scale - what works inside one administrative domain doesn't work once
> it crosses domain boundaries.
> 
> Plus, there's a lot more state to keep - if you think spanning tree
> gets ugly if the tree gets too big, think about what happens when the
> multicast covers 3,000 people in 117 ASN's, with people from multiple
> ASN's joining and leaving every few seconds.

add to that it is the TV model in a VOD world.  works for sports, maybe,
not for netflix

randy

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:17:59 -0600, Grant Taylor via NANOG said:

> As someone who 1) wasn't around during the last Internet scale foray
> into multicast and 2) working with multicast in a closed environment,
> I'm curios:
>
> What was wrong with Internet scale multicast?  Why did it get abandoned?

It failed to scale for some of the exact same reasons QoS failed to scale -
what works inside one administrative domain doesn't work once it crosses domain
boundaries.

Plus, there's a lot more state to keep - if you think spanning tree gets ugly
if the tree gets too big, think about what happens when the multicast covers
3,000 people in 117 ASN's, with people from multiple ASN's joining and leaving
every few seconds.



pgpAD8OWKMaNy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Matthias Waehlisch]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2020, John Kristoff wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 19:17:59 +
> Grant Taylor via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> > What was wrong with Internet scale multicast?  Why did it get abandoned?
> 
> There are about 20 years of archives to weed through, 
>
  most of the challenges, in particular incentive aspects, have been 
nicely discussed in "Deployment issues for the IP multicast service and 
architecture," IEEE Network 2000: 
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/1314/R02/papers/multicastdeploymentissues.pdf


Cheers
  matthias

-- 
Matthias Waehlisch
.  Freie Universitaet Berlin, Computer Science
.. http://www.cs.fu-berlin.de/~waehl

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Saku Ytti]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 22:43, Alexandre Petrescu
 wrote:

> On another hand, link-local multicast does seem to work ok, at least
> with IPv6.  The problem it solves there is not related to the width of
> the pipe, but more to resistance against 'storms' that were witnessed
> during ARP storms.  I could guess that Ethernet pipes are now so large

This is a case where the cure is far worse than the poison. People do
not run IPv6 ND like this, because you can't scale it. It would be
trivial for anyone in the LAN to exhaust multicast states on the L2
switch. It is entirely uneconomical to build L2 switch which could
support all the mcast groups ND could need. So those do not exist
today, defensive configuration floods the ND frames, just the same as
ARP.

You also cannot scale interdomain multicast (bier is trying to solve
this), because every flow S,G needs to be programmed in HW with list
of egress entries, this is very expensive to store and very expensive
to look, it is flow routing. Today already lookup speeds are not
limited by silicon but by memory access, and the scale of the problem
is much much smaller (and bound) in ucast.

-- 
  ++ytti

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 22/03/2020 à 21:31, Nick Hilliard a écrit :

Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote on 22/03/2020 19:17:

What was wrong with Internet scale multicast?  Why did it get abandoned?


there wasn't any problem with inter-domain multicast that couldn't be 
resolved by handing over to level 3 engineering and the vendor's 
support escalation team.


But then again, there weren't many problems with inter-domain 
multicast that could be resolved without handing over to level 3 
engineering and the vendor's support escalation team.


Nick


For my part I speculate multicast did not take off at any level (inter 
domain, intra domain) because pipes grew larger (more bandwidth) faster 
than uses ever needed.  Even now, I dont hear problems of bandwidth from 
some end users, like friends using netflix.  I do hear in media that 
there _might_ be an issue of capacity, but I did not hear that from end 
users.


On another hand, link-local multicast does seem to work ok, at least 
with IPv6.  The problem it solves there is not related to the width of 
the pipe, but more to resistance against 'storms' that were witnessed 
during ARP storms.  I could guess that Ethernet pipes are now so large 
they could accomodate many forms of ARP storms, but for one reason or 
another IPv6 ND has multicast and no broadcast.  It might even be a 
problem in the name, in that it is named 'IPv6 multicast ND' but 
underlying is often implemented with pure broadcast and local filters.


If the capacity is reached and if end users need more, then there are 
two alternative solutions: grow capacity unicast (e.g. 1Tb/s Ethernet) 
or multicast; it's useless to do both.  If we cant do 1 Tb/s Ethernet 
('apocalypse'  was called by some?) then we'll do multicast.


I think,

Alex, LF/HF 3

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Nick Hilliard]

Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote on 22/03/2020 19:17:

What was wrong with Internet scale multicast?  Why did it get abandoned?


there wasn't any problem with inter-domain multicast that couldn't be 
resolved by handing over to level 3 engineering and the vendor's support 
escalation team.


But then again, there weren't many problems with inter-domain multicast 
that could be resolved without handing over to level 3 engineering and 
the vendor's support escalation team.


Nick

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[John Kristoff]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 19:17:59 +
Grant Taylor via NANOG  wrote:

> What was wrong with Internet scale multicast?  Why did it get abandoned?

There are about 20 years of archives to weed through, and some of our
friends are still trying to make this happen.  I expect someone (Hi
Lenny) to appear any moment and mention AMT.  So my take isn't
universally accepted, but it won't be too far from what you'll hear
from many. Brief summary off the top of my head:

1. Complexity.  Both in protocol mechanisms and the requirements in
network devices (i.e. snooping, state, troubleshooting).

2. Security. Driven in part by #1, threats abound.  SSM can eliminate
some of this and you can design a receiver-only model that removes most
of the remaining problems - congratulations you just reinvented over
the air broadcast TV.  Even if you don't do interdomain IP multicast,
you still may be at risk:

  

3. Need and business drivers.  Still far from compelling to build and
support all this to make it worthwhile for all but a few niche
environments.

Support and expertise in this area is also very thin.  Your inquiry
demonstrates this.  I stopped teaching it to students.  What remains is
becoming even less well supported than it has been.  There is almost no
interdomain IP multicast monitoring being done anymore.  There is scant
actual content being delivered, all the once popular stuff is gone.
The number of engineers who know this stuff are dwindling and some that
do know something about it are removing at least some parts of it:

  

John

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Mark Tinka]

On 22/Mar/20 20:57, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
> Fellow NANOGers,
>
> Not a big deal by any means, but for those of you who have traffic data, I’m 
> curious what Sunday morning looked like as compared to other Sundays. Sure, 
> Netflix and similar companies have no doubt seen traffic increase, but I’m 
> wondering if an influx of church service streaming was substantial enough to 
> cause a noticeable traffic increase.
>
> We livestream our services and have been for about a year or so, but normally 
> average just a handful of viewers. Today, we were around 150 watching live.

Our Sunday morning, today, was not our highest peak since the 17th. Our
highest peak since the 17th was yesterday (Saturday morning), at around
0900hrs UTC.

Peak increase since the 17th went to 15%. Saturday morning was at 17.5%.

Mark.

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Matt Hoppes]

We didn't really see a noticeable inbound or outbound traffic change.

But we also streamed and had 80+ people watching online, so there was 
absolutely a traffic shift.


Still, Sunday Mornings are low traffic periods normally anyway, so the 
overall traffic "dent" was minimal.

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Saku Ytti]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 21:20, Grant Taylor via NANOG  wrote:

> What was wrong with Internet scale multicast?  Why did it get abandoned?

It is flow based routing, we do not have a solution to store and
lookup large amount of flows.

-- 
  ++ytti

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Grant Taylor via NANOG]

On 3/22/20 1:11 PM, John Kristoff wrote:

Owen DeLong  wrote:

Maybe it’s time to revisit inter-domain multicast?


Uhmm... no thank you.  :-)


As someone who 1) wasn't around during the last Internet scale foray 
into multicast and 2) working with multicast in a closed environment, 
I'm curios:


What was wrong with Internet scale multicast?  Why did it get abandoned?



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[nanog]

We are still far away from apocalypse to realistically think about
inter-domain multicast.
And even if we were ..


On 3/22/20 8:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Maybe it’s time to revisit inter-domain multicast?
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
>> On Mar 22, 2020, at 11:57 , Andy Ringsmuth  wrote:
>>
>> Fellow NANOGers,
>>
>> Not a big deal by any means, but for those of you who have traffic data, I’m 
>> curious what Sunday morning looked like as compared to other Sundays. Sure, 
>> Netflix and similar companies have no doubt seen traffic increase, but I’m 
>> wondering if an influx of church service streaming was substantial enough to 
>> cause a noticeable traffic increase.
>>
>> We livestream our services and have been for about a year or so, but 
>> normally average just a handful of viewers. Today, we were around 150 
>> watching live.
>>
>> 
>> Andy Ringsmuth
>> a...@andyring.com
>>
> 

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[John Kristoff]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 19:08:24 +
Owen DeLong  wrote:

> Maybe it’s time to revisit inter-domain multicast?

Uhmm... no thank you.  :-)

John

Re: Sunday traffic curiosity

[Owen DeLong]

Maybe it’s time to revisit inter-domain multicast?

Owen


> On Mar 22, 2020, at 11:57 , Andy Ringsmuth  wrote:
> 
> Fellow NANOGers,
> 
> Not a big deal by any means, but for those of you who have traffic data, I’m 
> curious what Sunday morning looked like as compared to other Sundays. Sure, 
> Netflix and similar companies have no doubt seen traffic increase, but I’m 
> wondering if an influx of church service streaming was substantial enough to 
> cause a noticeable traffic increase.
> 
> We livestream our services and have been for about a year or so, but normally 
> average just a handful of viewers. Today, we were around 150 watching live.
> 
> 
> Andy Ringsmuth
> a...@andyring.com
> 

Sunday traffic curiosity

[Andy Ringsmuth]

Fellow NANOGers,

Not a big deal by any means, but for those of you who have traffic data, I’m 
curious what Sunday morning looked like as compared to other Sundays. Sure, 
Netflix and similar companies have no doubt seen traffic increase, but I’m 
wondering if an influx of church service streaming was substantial enough to 
cause a noticeable traffic increase.

We livestream our services and have been for about a year or so, but normally 
average just a handful of viewers. Today, we were around 150 watching live.


Andy Ringsmuth
a...@andyring.com