January 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

More topics for NANOG 39 - and a reminder to register!
by Steve Feldman 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

We've just added more talks and BOFs for NANOG 39! The current list is at http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0702/topics.html Not listed yet are the popular lightning talks, and a keynote presentation we expect to announce later this week. Although the agenda is nearly full, there is still a little space for unusually good or timely last-minute additions. If you haven't already registered, please go to http://www.nanog.org and do! Next Monday, January 15, is the last day for the discounted rate. Also, don't forget that the hotel group rate expires on January 19. See you in Toronto! Steve Feldman PC Chair

1 0

Re: Internet Video: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the US Peering Ecosystem (v1.2)
by Brandon Butterworth 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

> Then that wouldn't be enough since the other Tier 1's would need to > upgrade their peering infrastructure to handle the larger peering > links (n*10G), having to argue to their CFO that they need to do it so > that their competitors can support the massive BW customers. Someone will take the business so that traffic is coming regardless, they can either be that peer or be the source with the cash. If they can't do either then they're not in business, I hope they wouldn't ignore it congesting their existing peers (I know...) > Then even if the peers all upgraded the peering gear at the same time, > the backbones would have to be upgraded as well to get that traffic > out of the IXes and out to the eyeball networks. The Internet doesn't scale, turn it off brandon

7 6

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
by Brandon Butterworth 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

> Note that video caching systems like P2P networks can > potentially serve video to extremely large numbers of > users while consuming reasonably low levels of upstream > bandwidth. The total bandwidth used is the same though, no escaping that, someone pays. > Then local users > use local bandwidth to get copies of that broadcast over > the next few days. If it was only redistributed locally. Even in that case it's not helping much as it still consumes the most expensive bandwidth (for UK ADSL). Transit is way cheaper than BT ADSL wholesale, you're saving something that's cheap. > For this to work, you need P2P software whose algorithms > are geared to conserving upstream bandwidth Or the caches that are being sold to fudge the protocols to keep it local but if you're buying them we could have just as easily done http download and let it be cached by existing appliances. brandon

4 3

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
by Fergie 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Gian Constantine <constantinegi(a)corp.earthlink.net> wrote: >Ah-ha. You are mistaken. :-) > >My focus is next-gen broadband and video. The wifi guys have their own >>department. > >Good try, though. :-) > Indeed. Also, the current state of wifi (and indeed, wireless connectivity in general) quality has to improve immensely before I would be too terribly concerned with the onslaught of multimedia traffic -- most people are still frustrated with dropped cellphone calls. :-) - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.2 (Build 4075) wj8DBQFFpQsgq1pz9mNUZTMRAsb9AKDjlvJJi7ywr5Qx3GREQLeBLeHyfQCfd+jM 960CsCul1q3NqQYUtENmyvc= =sTEg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
by Frank Coluccio 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

Gian wrote: "From a big picture standpoint, I would say P2P distribution is a non-starter, too many reluctant parties to appease. From a detail standpoint, I would say P2P distribution faces too many hurdles in existing network infrastructure to be justified. Simply reference the discussion of upstream bandwidth caps and you will have a wonderful example of those hurdles." Speaking about upstream hurdles, just out of curiosity (since this is merely a diversionary discussion at this point;) ... wouldn't peer-to-peer be the LEAST desirable approach for an SP that is launching WiFi nets as its primary first mile platform? I note that Earthlink is launching a number of cityscale WiFi nets as we speak, which is why I'm asking. Has this in any way, even subliminally, been influential in the shaping of your opinions about P2P for content distribution? I know that it would affect my views, a whole lot, since the prospects for WiFi's shared upstream capabilities to improve are slim to none in the short to intermediate terms. Whereas, CM and FTTx are known to raise their down and up offerings periodically, gated only by their usual game of chicken where each watches to see who'll be first. Frank On Mon Jan 8 22:26 , Gian Constantine sent: >My contention is simple. The content providers will not allow P2P video as a legal commercial service anytime in the near future. Furthermore, most ISPs are going to side with the content providers on this one. Therefore, discussing it at this point in time is purely academic, or more so, diversionary.Personally, I am not one for throttling high use subscribers. Outside of the fine print, which no one reads, they were sold a service of Xkbps down and Ykbps up. I could not care less how, when, or how often they use it. If you paid for it, burn it up.I have questions as to whether or not P2P video is really a smart distribution method for service provider who controls the access medium. Outside of being a service provider, I think the economic model is weak, when there can be little expectation of a large scale take rate.Ultimately, my answer is: we're not there yet. The infrastructure isn't there. The content providers aren't there. The market isn't there. The product needs a motivator. This discussion has been putting the cart before the horse.A lot of big pictures pieces are completely overlooked. We fail to question whether or not P2P sharing is a good method in delivering the product. There are a lot of factors which play into this. Unfortunately, more interest has been paid to the details of this delivery method than has been paid to whether or not the method is even worthwhile.From a big picture standpoint, I would say P2P distribution is a non-starter, too many reluctant parties to appease. From a detail standpoint, I would say P2P distribution faces too many hurdles in existing network infrastructure to be justified. Simply reference the discussion of upstream bandwidth caps and you will have a wonderful example of those hurdles. > Gian Anthony ConstantineSenior Network Design EngineerEarthlink, Inc. >On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote:So, kind of back to the original question: what is going to be the reaction of your average service provider to the presence of an increasing number of people sucking down massive amounts of video and spitting it back out again... nothing? throttling all traffic of a certain type? shutting down customers who exceed certain thresholds? or just throttling their traffic? massive upgrades of internal network hardware? >Is it your contention that there's no economic model, given the architecture of current networks, which would would generate enough revenue to offset the cost of traffic generated by P2P video? >Thomas >Gian Constantine wrote: There may have been a disconnect on my part, or at least, a failure to disclose my position. I am looking at things from a provider standpoint, whether as an ISP or a strict video service provider. >I agree with you. From a consumer standpoint, a trickle or off-peak download model is the ideal low-impact solution to content delivery. And absolutely, a 500GB drive would almost be overkill on space for disposable content encoded in H.264. Excellent SD (480i) content can be achieved at ~1200 to 1500kbps, resulting in about a 1GB file for a 90 minute title. HD is almost out of the question for internet download, given good 720p at ~5500kbps, resulting in a 30GB file for a 90 minute title. >Service providers wishing to provide this service to their customers may see some success where they control the access medium (copper loop, coax, FTTH). Offering such a service to customers outside of this scope would prove very expensive, and likely, would never see a return on the investment without extensive peering arrangements. Even then, distribution rights would be very difficult to attain without very deep pockets and crippling revenue sharing. The studios really dislike the idea of transmission outside of a closed network. Don't forget. Even the titles you mentioned are still owned by very large companies interested in squeezing every possible dime from their assets. They would not be cheap to acquire. >Further, torrent-like distribution is a long long way away from sign off by the content providers. They see torrents as the number one tool of content piracy. This is a major reason I see the discussion of tripping upstream usage limits through content distribution as moot. >I am with you on the vision of massive content libraries at the fingertips of all, but I see many roadblocks in the way. And, almost none of them are technical in nature. >Gian Anthony ConstantineSenior Network Design EngineerEarthlink, Inc.Office: 404-748-6207Cell: 404-808-4651Internal Ext: x22007constantinegi(a)corp.earthlink.net <mailto:constantinegi@corp.earthlink.net> > > >On Jan 8, 2007, at 7:51 PM, Bora Akyol wrote: > >Please see my comments inline: > -----Original Message-----From: Gian Constantine [mailto:constantinegi@corp.earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:27 PMTo: Bora AkyolCc: nanog(a)merit.edu <mailto:nanog@merit.edu>Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? > <snip> >I would also argue storage and distribution costs are not asymptotically zero with scale. Well designed SANs are not cheap. Well designed distribution systems are not cheap. While price does decrease when scaled upwards, the cost of such an operation remains hefty, and increases with additions to the offered content library and a swelling of demand for this content. I believe the graph becomes neither asymptotic, nor anywhere near zero. >To the end user, there is no cost to downloading videos when they aresleeping.I would argue that other than sports (and some news) events, there ispretty much no content thatneeds to be real time. What the downloading (possibly 24x7) does is to stress the ISP network to its max since the assumptions of statisticalmultiplexinggoes out the window. Think of a Tivo that downloads content off theInternet24x7. The user is still paying for only what they pay each month, and this is"network neutrality 2.0" all over again. > > You are correct on the long tail nature of music. But music is not consumed in a similar manner as TV and movies. Television and movies involve a little more commitment and attention. Music is more for the moment and the mood. There is an immediacy with music consumption. Movies and television require a slight degree more patience from the consumer. The freshness (debatable :-) ) of new release movies and TV can often command the required patience from the consumer. Older content rarely has the same pull. >I would argue against your distinction between visual and auditorycontent.There is a lot of content out there that a lot of people watch and thecontentis 20-40+ years old. Think Brady Bunch, Bonanza, or archived games fromNFL,MLB etc. What about Smurfs (for those of us with kids)? >This is only the beginning. >If I can get a 500GB box and download MP4 content, that's a lot ofessentially free storage. >Coming back to NANOG content, I think video (not streamed but multi-pathdistributed video) is going to bring the networks down not by sheerbandwidth alone but by challenging the assumptions behind theengineering of the network. I don't think you need huge SANs per se tostore the content either, since it is multi-source/multi-sink, thereliability is built-in. >The SPs like Verizon & ATT moving fiber to the home hoping to get in onthe "value add" action are in for an awakening IMHO. >Regards >Boraps. I apologize for the tone of my previous email. That sounded grumpierthan I usually am. > > > > >-- Thomas Leavitt - thomas(a)thomasleavitt.org - 831-295-3917 (cell) >*** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA *** ><thomas.vcf> >

2 1

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
by Fergie 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Sean Donelan <sean(a)donelan.com> wrote: [lots of good stuff elided] >There is rarely only one way to solve a problem. There will be multiple >ways to distribute data, video, voice, etc. > Completely agreed, and I think this is the crux of the entire thread. As I mentioned to Bill earlier in this thread, costs are one thing -- business models are built around them, while balancing the technical economies of scale. :-) Vive la diversité! - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.2 (Build 4075) wj8DBQFFpHnxq1pz9mNUZTMRAl2GAJ9csRbQe8XxCNmWn3inumLnzPYF+gCdEH5q s5L54COvtGjZBvjcwI4cCpI= =gEo/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Internet Video: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the US Peering Ecosystem (v1.2)
by William B. Norton 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

Hi all - Over the last year or so I have been working with Internet video companies who asked essentially the same question - "What is the most effective way of distributing massive quantities of Internet (video) traffic?" This has become a significant issue NOW because a few of the largest US ISPs are turning away these n*10G Internet video transit customers ! Thanks to all of you that shared your insights, or let me walk you through what this community has found to date, and especially those of you who shared their data points and allowed me to cite you as a source. I'm at the point now where I'd like to share the current draft (v1.2) of this discussion paper with a broader audience, epsecially those who will allow me to schedule a time to talk through the draft with you. (I have found this is the most effective way to get feedback next to face-to-face walkthroughs over lunch). Here's the Abstract: Video Internet: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the U.S. Peering Ecosystem (v1.2) In previous research we documented three significant disruptions to the U.S. Peering Ecosystem as the Cable Companies, Large Scale Network Savvy Content Companies, and Tier 2 ISPs started peering openly. By peering with directly each other they effectively bypassed the Tier 1 ISPs resulting in improved performance, greater control over the end-user experience, and overall lower operating costs. This paper predicts a new wave of disruption that potentially dwarfs currently peered Internet traffic. Some of this emerging wave of Video Traffic is demonstrating viral properties, so the more popular videos are generating massive "Flash Crowd" effects. Viral Amplifiers (sites that do not host but rather highlight the most popular videos) amplify any viral properties a video may have. If we combine this flash crowd effect and the increased size of the video files downloaded, we see the crest of the first wave of significant incremental load on the Internet. The majority of this paper details four models for Internet Video Distribution (Transit, Content Delivery Networks, Transit/Peering/DIY CDN, Peer2Peer) across three load models. The cost models include network and server equipment along with pricing models for various distribution methods. Dozens of walkthroughs of this paper have led to stepwise refinement of the models and insights into why one would prefer or not prefer one model over the other. The summary is a comparison in cost-per-video across small, medium, and large distributions. The models (spreadsheets) can be made available to those interested. Bill -- //------------------------------------------------ // William B. Norton <wbn(a)equinix.com> // Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison, Equinix // GSM Mobile: 650-315-8635 // Skype, Y!IM: williambnorton

4 4

A side-note Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
by Scott Weeks 09 Jan '07

09 Jan '07

: ...My view on this subject is U.S.-centric...this : is NANOG, not AFNOG or EuroNOG or SANOG. The 'internet' is generally boundary-less. I would hope that one day our discussions will be likewise. Otherwise, the forces of the boundary-creators will segment everthing we are working on and defend the borders they've created. scott

2 1

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
by Fergie 09 Jan '07

09 Jan '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Gian Constantine <constantinegi(a)corp.earthlink.net> wrote: >The available address space for multicast in IPv4 is limited. IPv6 vastly >expands this space. And here, I may have been guilty of putting the cart >before the horse. Inter-AS multicast does not exist today because the >motivators are not there. It is absolutely possible, but providers have to >want to do it. Consumers need to see some benefit from it. Again, the >benefit needs to be seen by a large market. Providers make decisions in >the interest of their bottom line. A niche service is not a motivator for >inter-AS multicast. If demand for variety in service provider selection >grows with the proliferation of IPTV, we may see the required motivation >for inter-AS multicast, which places us in a position moving to the large >multicast space available in IPv6. > I don't think I'd be hanging my hat on IPv6 operational frobs at this moment in time. But that's just me. :-) $.02, - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.2 (Build 4075) wj8DBQFFo+oXq1pz9mNUZTMRAuSaAJ47tTGFI+kTaZwOO2D6CHOWmIn6eACgyZzd xy6wZ7sFYsU3jeU2a3XIBq4= =aRhp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1

Re: Internet Video: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the US Peer ing Ecosystem (v1.2)
by Fergie 09 Jan '07

09 Jan '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "William B. Norton" <bill.norton(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 1/9/07, Fergie <fergdawg(a)netzero.net> wrote: > >> I think it remains to be seen that that model will actually change >> dramatically to more of a "semi- real-time" model, regardless of >> the desires (or fears) of various vendors or operators. > >Hmm...I should have been more clear. I'm comparing the options a video >guy has : buy transit to distribute the videos, buy CDN services, buy >a mix or transit and peering, or use P2P. I have sample configurations >and cost models for each, and cost them in units of $/video >distributed for side to side comparison. > >From the reviews and discussions it was interesting how entrenched and >enraged some people became when the p2p distribution model costed out >to be the cheapest by far: > Well, cost issues speak for themselves. Adoption issues, of course, are another issue entirely. :-) - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.2 (Build 4075) wj8DBQFFo+1gq1pz9mNUZTMRAqOdAKDtm916QwEqKlrPbEBNVgD0QjI4egCgvLmv M0LDP50+LZEfR/IlrIfk0vM= =PVII -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0