- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Re Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any Other Company
by Brandon Butterworth 26 May '11

26 May '11

> NAME five consumer-grade commercial off the shelf products http://lmgtfy.com/?q=STB+PVR+ethernet > Proof: go to Titantv.com, select the 'digital cable' channel line-up for > 'Comcast areas 1, 4 & 5' in zipcode 60640 (chicago north side, lakefront). > and check the comcast channels in the range 340-379. lol comcast. All bets are off. > I'll simply ask, _which_ of those channels will have that extra data stream > that the head-end inserted? That the cable compmany doesn't know, or care, > about, and *how* does it survive the de-multiplexing and re-coding that the > cable company did? I'm in agreement with you already, I said on digital the b/w had already been consumed making it financially unviable. If you paid they'd leave it alone. > You apparently have no idea how 'digital TV' is delivered by all the major > cable companies in the U.S. -- demultiplexed, and transcoded to QAM with > each video stream on a separate QAM channel. I don't see any _possible_ > way for an additional data stream to survive _that_, without explicit > intervention/support from the cable company. They make their own choices overiding the original broadcasters. Net neutrality is old. brandon

2 1

Re: Re Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any Other Company
by Brandon Butterworth 26 May '11

26 May '11

> No, we're pretty sure you're wrong there, probably because you're > purposely ignoring our *specific* characterization of the thing which > was actually done. I disagreed with two statements:- > > On the engineering side, _impossible_. Modern satellite > > feeds of NTSC (analog) TV signals use compressed digital > > representations of only the image portion of each 'field' > > of the video stream With my Captain Obvious hat on I said digital systems can carry such data. The case where some cable companies interfere with the original broadcasters data doesn't demonstrate it is impossible, they don't affect the quoted satellite case nor others such as DTT > > On the financial side, it is trivial. I don't disagree with the cable cases quoted by others, they demonstrate why I disagreed that it's financially trivial. Of course I'm wrong, it is financially trivial as they would carry it if you paid them. It's just highly unlikely to be financially viable > You can't really guarantee that random things injected into a transport > stream mux at the send end will make it to the receive end; everyone in > the transport path very likely thinks they're entitled to pull the > separate program streams out and fiddle with them however they like -- > Hell: local cablecos *reencode* the local station HD signals to compress > them further. Yes, that was the case with analogue too, they just hadn't found someone to sell the data to back then. Cable companies will mess with anything including netflix. In our case we sold VBI data so I coudln't make a viable case to offer a USENET service. brandon

1 0

Re: Re Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any Other Company
by Brandon Butterworth 26 May '11

26 May '11

> You demonstrate you have no understanding of what the word 'feasable' > means. OK, but we actually did this as a commercial service on analogue TV and we deliver non picture data on digital TV (satellite and terrestrial) today, it's just not USENET data. > One _cannot_ do this with 'modern' digital TV trasmission, because the > _end-to-end_ technolgy does not support it. Apologies for disagreeing, but this is exactly what the modern technology does. Digital TV (ATSC in your case, DVB-T & DVB-S in our case) has a multiplex of a number of independent data streams that can be data, video or audio. That is carried end to end. We do this now with other data - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Red_Button It'd be trivial for us to display USENET directly to read on your TV or deliver it to the STB ethernet port > OTOH, if the signal originates as a digital stream, while it may be > "possible" to multiplex in an additional data stream, said data stream > will *NOT* survive _intermediate_ transcoding to an analog video stream > before transmission to the end-user. Indeed but that is not a digital TV system. > And, even if the actual digital > stream is delivered to the end-user, a *STANDARD* digital TV receiver has > no means to deliver that 'additional' information to the end-user in any > usableform. Standard DTV PVR with an ethernet port are a few hundred dollars. For the people who would actually receive this the box cost is trivial they just some software. If you have a USB or PCI DTV rx it is trivial to do whatever you like with the data. brandon

3 2

Re: [outages] Level 3 core router in Chicago down?
by Jay Ashworth 26 May '11

26 May '11

----- Original Message ----- > On 5/25/2011 11:25 PM, Brooks Bridges wrote: > > We just lost a bunch of routes out of Chicago over Level 3. > > > > Seems to be dying at edge routers right before their core. > > > > 1. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 0.0% 10 0.5 0.4 > > 0.3 0.6 0.1 > Of course, as soon as I hit send, it comes back... Well, thanks for fixin' that, Brooks. Night, now. Cheers, -- jr 'causation? what's that?' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

2 1

Re: Re Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any Other Company
by Jay Ashworth 26 May '11

26 May '11

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brandon Butterworth" <brandon(a)rd.bbc.co.uk> > > You demonstrate you have no understanding of what the word > > 'feasable' means. > > OK, but we actually did this as a commercial service on analogue TV and > we deliver non picture data on digital TV (satellite and terrestrial) > today, it's just not USENET data. You demonstrate that you have no understanding of what the words "sneak along" mean. :-) > > One _cannot_ do this with 'modern' digital TV trasmission, because > > the _end-to-end_ technolgy does not support it. > > Apologies for disagreeing, but this is exactly what the modern > technology does. Allow you to sneak in extra data in an otherwise unused place that won't affect anything, and no one will have to deal with, but end viewers will be able to see it anyway? No, we're pretty sure you're wrong there, probably because you're purposely ignoring our *specific* characterization of the thing which was actually done. > Digital TV (ATSC in your case, DVB-T & DVB-S in our case) has a > multiplex of a number of independent data streams that can be data, > video or audio. That is carried end to end. > > We do this now with other data - > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Red_Button > > It'd be trivial for us to display USENET directly to read on your TV > or deliver it to the STB ethernet port Sure. But that wasn't what we were *talking* about. > > OTOH, if the signal originates as a digital stream, while it may be > > "possible" to multiplex in an additional data stream, said data > > stream will *NOT* survive _intermediate_ transcoding to an analog video > > stream before transmission to the end-user. > > Indeed but that is not a digital TV system. Nobody said it was, and what's more: we don't care. :-) > > And, even if the actual digital > > stream is delivered to the end-user, a *STANDARD* digital TV > > receiver has > > no means to deliver that 'additional' information to the end-user in > > any usableform. > > Standard DTV PVR with an ethernet port are a few hundred dollars. > > For the people who would actually receive this the box cost is trivial > they just some software. If you have a USB or PCI DTV rx it is trivial > to do whatever you like with the data. You can't really guarantee that random things injected into a transport stream mux at the send end will make it to the receive end; everyone in the transport path very likely thinks they're entitled to pull the separate program streams out and fiddle with them however they like -- Hell: local cablecos *reencode* the local station HD signals to compress them further. So not only are you not making assertions about the same thing we are, there's a very good chance you're incorrect in the general case about the assertion you *are* making. I don't know if my understanding of terrestrial network and satellite broadcasting in the US carries over to the continent, but I'd bet at least the latter does... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

1 0

AT&T Opti-man Dallas down
by Tim Connolly 26 May '11

26 May '11

The Dallas area had a round of storms go through last night. Looks like this morning's flaming bag on the front porch was AT&T's "OptiMan" metro-E service was down. Can anyone confirm that this was a wide outage and not just a single customer? Any details released?

3 2

Re Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any Other Company
by Robert Bonomi 25 May '11

25 May '11

> From brandon(a)rd.bbc.co.uk Wed May 25 04:21:13 2011 > Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:19:09 +0100 (BST) > From: Brandon Butterworth <brandon(a)rd.bbc.co.uk> > To: morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com, nanog(a)nanog.org, bonomi(a)mail.r-bonomi.com > Subject: Re: Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any > Other Company > > > > So... would this have been feasible today? given the bandwidth required > > > to send a full feed these days, i suspect likely not, eh? (even if you > > > were able to do it on all 500+ channels in parallel) > > > > On the financial side, it is trivial. > > The opposite, the bits were paid for but unused back then so > financially it was worth using them. In digital tv every bit has a use > and so a cost, hence they are used for more TV channels instead for > parasitic services. You end up competing with TV if you want any > quantity so hard to make viable today. You demonstrate you have no understanding of what the word 'feasable' means. > > On the engineering side, _impossible_. > > The opposite, completely trivial now. FALSE TO FACT. > Digital TV is a mux of a number > of bit streams, some with compressed video others with meta data for > epg, alternate sound, interactive apps etc. Adding another stream to > the mux is trivial, you just have to pay for the bandwidth though as > most are stat muxed it's possible to create room at the expense of the > vbr streams where the video encoders reduce the quality of as result of > back pressure from the stat muxer Obviously, you misunderstood the 'do this' reference of the prior poster. The 'elegence' of the original Stargate scheme was that the data was injected into the original video signal at the oint of origin, passed through _all_ the intermediate points, WITHOUT any special handling (or even 'awareness' that the 'extra' information is there) and delivered to the end-user, where it was extracted by a _standard_ TV receiver to a normal _video_ signal, from which the extra data was then extracted. One _cannot_ do this with 'modern' digital TV trasmission, because the _end-to-end_ technolgy does not support it. *IF* the signal =originates= as an _analog_ video signal, as many of the cable-only channels _still_ do, "data" in the vertical interval is lost at the analog-to-digital conversion, and simply _cannot_ be recovered at the end-user's TV reciever output. OTOH, if the signal originates as a digital stream, while it may be "possible" to multiplex in an additional data stream, said data stream will *NOT* survive _intermediate_ transcoding to an analog video stream before transmission to the end-user. And, even if the actual digital stream is delivered to the end-user, a *STANDARD* digital TV receiver has no means to deliver that 'additional' information to the end-user in any usableform. *GIVEN* the constraints of: 1) injection at the point of video signal origination (-not- the satellite uplink point 2) "transparent" carriage to the end-user viewer of the video signal, 3) end-user extraction of data from the output of a commercial off-the-shelf TV tuner/receiver Now, > > > To pick a conservative number, say you get an effective throughput of > > 2k bytes/sec > > It'd be easy to squeeze that into a normal tv satellite mux Sorry, you've got to squeeze _several_times_ that figure 'into the mux', to provide the 'redundant' transmissions needed to compensate for momentary LOS events. So?? what about the _rest_ of the path the signal goes through to get to the end-user's TV set. The original methodology was -not- about delivering a USENET feed to a satellite receiving station with special eqquipment to extract it, but delivering it _transparently_ (or even 'invisibly' :) ALL THE WAY to the _end-user_ consumer/viewer. > > > As I understand it, a current USENET 'full feed', including binaries, take > > two dedicated 100mbit FDX fast ethernet links, and they are saturated _most_ > > of the day. At that rate, A full day of TV vertical interval transmission > > wuould handle under _ten_seconds_ worth of the inbound traffic. You would > > around =ten=thousand= analog TV channels to handle a contemporary 'full > > feed'. > > Or just 3 full muxes at cost of around 10M (probably the same in any > currency) per year *TRIPLE* that, _at_least_, to allow for automatic multiple transmissions of everything, to avoid 'lost data' due to data errors and/or momentary signal- path obstructions. This is a one-way 'broadcast' link with no ACK/NAK type responses from the receiving end(s) possible. Recurring cost for the sat link, more like 30-50 million/year. Plus the costs _or the dedicated gear at _every_ downlink point. Further, that gets it on the satellite -- "Now What??" applies. _How_ do you get it the proverbial 'last mile' to the end-user consumer? And at what kind of cost for the CPE for _each_ customer? Or are you 'assuming' that some third-party handles that? Don't forget to add the capital cost for all the CPE, _plus_ the MRC for the last-mile distribution to the circa 40 million/year for the 'bare' satellite bandwidth. The value of 'Stargate' was that it delivered a feed to _anyone_ who could get the video signal -- with _zero_ action required by any intermediate third party who was re-transmitting the signal -- in a form that could be extracted with *inexpensive* CPE. There was also an _esisting_ 'standard' for the encoding of data into the video signal, so that the same CPE could be used to extract data from _any_ video source carrying it. And, there _were_ multiple possible video sources. If the local cable company carried a ny of them you were in business. Yes, you *CAN* engineer a "completely different" methodology for delivering a full USENET feed to end-users via satellite transmission. However, doing so is contrary to the premise of the existing discussion.

2 1

Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any Other Company
by Roy 25 May '11

25 May '11

http://e.businessinsider.com/public/184962

35 58

Re: Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any Other Company
by Brandon Butterworth 25 May '11

25 May '11

> > So... would this have been feasible today? given the bandwidth required > > to send a full feed these days, i suspect likely not, eh? (even if you > > were able to do it on all 500+ channels in parallel) > > On the financial side, it is trivial. The opposite, the bits were paid for but unused back then so financially it was worth using them. In digital tv every bit has a use and so a cost, hence they are used for more TV channels instead for parasitic services. You end up competing with TV if you want any quantity so hard to make viable today. > On the engineering side, _impossible_. The opposite, completely trivial now. Digital TV is a mux of a number of bit streams, some with compressed video others with meta data for epg, alternate sound, interactive apps etc. Adding another stream to the mux is trivial, you just have to pay for the bandwidth though as most are stat muxed it's possible to create room at the expense of the vbr streams where the video encoders reduce the quality of as result of back pressure from the stat muxer > To pick a conservative number, say you get an effective throughput of > 2k bytes/sec It'd be easy to squeeze that into a normal tv satellite mux > As I understand it, a current USENET 'full feed', including binaries, take > two dedicated 100mbit FDX fast ethernet links, and they are saturated _most_ > of the day. At that rate, A full day of TV vertical interval transmission > wuould handle under _ten_seconds_ worth of the inbound traffic. You would > around =ten=thousand= analog TV channels to handle a contemporary 'full > feed'. Or just 3 full muxes at cost of around 10M (probably the same in any currency) per year brandon

2 1

Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space
by Scott Weeks 25 May '11

25 May '11

--- wavetossed(a)googlemail.com wrote: So we should CONDONE such borrowing and recommend a couple of /8s to use in North America. Perhaps one could be DOD for those operators ---------------------------------------- Yes, so it turns IPv4 into such a big steaming pile that every one goes to IPv6 to "get clean" and get their lives back from all the ugly IPv4 troubleshooting. >;-) <== evil grin scott

1 0