death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
(i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?) ... A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of the pipes. ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6342063.stm
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
(i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?)
...
A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of the pipes.
because people can't get more pipe? perhaps next time the news folks could ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network operators? (or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and no more fiber to push traffic over? wasn't there in fact a hue and cry about a 1) fiber glut, 2) only 4% of all fiber actually lit?) -Chris still-waiting-for-the-rapture
On Feb 11, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
perhaps next time the news folks could ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network operators?
they did ask one, you must have missed this from the article: "Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,......." -b
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:14:49AM -0700, brett watson wrote:
On Feb 11, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
perhaps next time the news folks could ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network operators?
they did ask one, you must have missed this from the article:
"Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,......."
isn't this a little like saying we are running out of voice capacity on the network because YellowPages can't find cheap paper to print their directories? surely they could have found a more relevant source. -- [ Jim Mercer jim@reptiles.org +971 50 436-3874 ] [ I want to live forever, or die trying. ]
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, brett watson wrote:
they did ask one, you must have missed this from the article:
"Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,......."
I forgot that new IP over POS over DNS over IP over POS backbone...
I didn't know verisign was a transit provider. Anyone use em?
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of brett watson Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:15 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Feb 11, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
perhaps next time the news folks could ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network operators?
they did ask one, you must have missed this from the article:
"Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,......."
-b
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:14:49AM -0700, brett watson wrote:
"Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,......."
IP over domain name registration? -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:14:49AM -0700, brett watson wrote:
"Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,......."
IP over domain name registration?
We already had Video over DNS. Why not?
-Chris, still-waiting-for-the-rapture, wrote as follows:
(or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and no more fiber to push traffic over? wasn't there in fact a hue and cry about a 1) fiber glut, 2) only 4% of all fiber actually lit?)
:-). however, you did seem to miss the hue and cry about how ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO GOOGLE now. a smattering of this can be found at: * http://www.internetoutsider.com/2006/04/how_much_dark_f.html * http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2005/11/google_data_cen.html now as to whether this is true, or whether it's a prevent-defense meant to strangle the redmond folks before the redmond folks know they needed fiber or whether google actually needs the capacity, or whether it's possible to lock up the market for more than couple of years, given that more capacity can be laid in once all the LRU's are signed... who the heck knows or cares? but hue there has been, and cry also, and measurement weenettes are likely banging their foreheads against their powerbook screens while they read our uninformed "4%" estimates.
:-). however, you did seem to miss the hue and cry about how ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO GOOGLE now. a smattering of this can be found at:
Has anyone considered that perhaps google is not looking at beating Microsoft but instead at beating TIVO, ABC, CBS, Warner Cable, etc? You can't possibly believe that there is enough bandwidth to stream High Def video to everyone, that's just not going to happen any time soon. However, as the file share networks have proven, it is possible to download that content in mass today with todays last mile. Download it over time to watch it when you want to, the internet version of TIVO. Thats where I think Google is headed with the dark fiber and massive storage containers. The fiber lets them get content to local points across the internet, like a great big fileshare network except with google in control so they can promise media producers that the material will be downloaded with commercials in the downloads. All you need is someone like Cisco to team with who can produce a network consumer DVD player capable of assuming the roll of a physical tivo box, say something like the kiss technology DP-600 box (cisco bought kiss last year) that the MPAA loves so much (MPAA bought thousands of them for their own purposes) and presto things are suddenly taking a whole new shape and direction. So now you get a choice, buy a new HD TV tuner or buy a new DVD player that does standard or HD tv even after the over the air broadcast change happens in the US. All your base indeed.. no hue required. George Roettger Netlink Services
Has anyone considered that perhaps google is not looking at beating Microsoft but instead at beating TIVO, ABC, CBS, Warner Cable, etc?
sure, but...
You can't possibly believe that there is enough bandwidth to stream HD video to everyone, that's just not going to happen any time soon.
...wouldn't there be, if interdomain multicast existed and had a billing model that could lead to a compelling business model? right now, to the best of my knowledge, all large multicast flows are still intradomain. so if tivo and the others wanted to deliver all that crap using IP, would they do what broadcast.com did (lots of splitter/repeater stations), or do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put some capital and preorder into IDMR?
All you need is someone like Cisco to team with who can produce a network consumer DVD player capable of assuming the roll of a physical tivo box, say something like the kiss technology DP-600 box (cisco bought kiss last year) that the MPAA loves so much (MPAA bought thousands of them for their own purposes) and presto things are suddenly taking a whole new shape and direction.
yeah. sadly, that seems like the inevitable direction for the market leaders and disruptors. but i still wonder if a dark horse like IDMR can still emerge among the followers and incumbents (or the next-gen disruptors)?
So now you get a choice, buy a new HD TV tuner or buy a new DVD player that does standard or HD tv even after the over the air broadcast change happens in the US.
at some point tivo will disable my fast-forward button and i'll give up network TV altogether. irritatingly, hundreds of millions of others will not. but we digress.
do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put some capital and preorder into IDMR?
IDMR is great if you're a broadcaster or a backbone, but how does it help the last 2 miles, the phoneco ATM network or the ISP network where you have 10k different users watching 10k different channels? I'm not sure if it would help with a multinode replication network like what google is probably up to either (which explains why they want dedicated bandwidth, internode replication solves the backup problems as well). Also forgetting that bandwidth issue for a moment, where is the draw that makes IPTV better than cable or satellite? I mean come on guys, if the world had started out with IPTV live broadcasts over the internet and then someone developed cable, satellite, or over the air broadcasting, any of those would have been considered an improvement. IPTV needs something the others don't have and a simple advantage is that of an archive instead of broadcast medium. The model has to be different from the broadcast model or it's never going to fly. TIVO type setup with a massive archive of every show so you can not only watch this weeks episode but you can tivo download any show from the last 6 years worth of your favorite series is one heck of a draw over cable or satellite and might be enough to motivate the public to move to a different service. A better tivo than tivo. As for making money, just stick a commercial on the front of every download. How many movies are claimed downloaded on the fileshare networks every week? Geo.
Thus spake "Geo." <geoincidents@nls.net>
TIVO type setup with a massive archive of every show so you can not only watch this weeks episode but you can tivo download any show from the last 6 years worth of your favorite series is one heck of a draw over cable or satellite and might be enough to motivate the public to move to a different service. A better tivo than tivo.
As I've pointed out before, the pirates _are already doing this_, and it works. Unfortunately, it remains to be seen if the Net will survive 1000x as many users. P2P have interesting scaling characteristics; 1000x as many users doesn't mean 1000x as many bit-miles. In fact, higher densities may reduce the bit-miles -- and network operators pay for bit-miles, not bits.
As for making money, just stick a commercial on the front of every download.
BitTorrent, Inc. is working deals to distribute DRMed files freely over P2P and individual users would just purchase a license to view the files after the download is complete. (Of course, I assume this'll be cracked relatively soon, but like with iTMS, most people will pay anyways) The alternative is free viewing with more product placement, inline ads at the top/bottom of the screen, or a little header with "this program is brought to you commercial-free by <sponsor>", like I've seen on soccer (football to non-US folks) games. Commercials in their present form are dying fast with the advent of DVRs, and on-demand shows will destroy them -- though that won't stop some dinosaurs from trying it. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
On Feb 11, 2007, at 4:22 PM, Geo. wrote:
do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put some capital and preorder into IDMR?
IDMR is great if you're a broadcaster or a backbone, but how does it help the last 2 miles, the phoneco ATM network or the ISP network where you have 10k different users watching 10k different channels? I'm not sure if it would help with a multinode replication network like what google is probably up to either (which explains why they want dedicated bandwidth, internode replication solves the backup problems as well).
I terms of available HD content, you're far more likely to face 10,000 customers whatching 1,000 different channels, and, there will likely be some clustering. In that case, IDMR will help a lot with the exception of the last 2 miles, where, the amount of bandwidth available to the home will probably remain the limiting factor for some time in the US. I places where MAE is a common household network delivery mechanism, this is less of a factor. I think it will probably take the US a decade or so to get to where much of Europe and Japan is today.
Also forgetting that bandwidth issue for a moment, where is the draw that makes IPTV better than cable or satellite? I mean come on guys, if the world had started out with IPTV live broadcasts over the internet and then someone developed cable, satellite, or over the air broadcasting, any of those would have been considered an improvement. IPTV needs something the others don't have and a simple advantage is that of an archive instead of broadcast medium. The model has to be different from the broadcast model or it's never going to fly.
IPTV today isn't an improvement, much as VOIP 5 years ago had nothing to offer over POTS. Today, VOIP is rapidly gaining popularity even though the differentiators for it are small because it does provide some cost savings in some cases. As IPTV and especially HD IPTV starts to mature, and, as users begin to reclaim fair use and space/time/device shifting rights that are theirs under the copyright act and take back what the MPAA and RIAA continue to try to block, the rapid and convenient sharing of content, the reduced cost of delivery to the content providers, and, other factors will eventually cause IPTV to present an improvement over today's existing unidirectional services. Today IPTV is in its infancy and is strictly a novelty for early adopters. As the technology matures and as the market develops an understanding of the possibilities creating pressure on manufacturers and content providers to offer better, it will gradually become compelling.
TIVO type setup with a massive archive of every show so you can not only watch this weeks episode but you can tivo download any show from the last 6 years worth of your favorite series is one heck of a draw over cable or satellite and might be enough to motivate the public to move to a different service. A better tivo than tivo. As for making money, just stick a commercial on the front of every download. How many movies are claimed downloaded on the fileshare networks every week?
There are lots of ways to make money. Personally, I think the long- term winning model will be something similar to Netflix with IP replacing the USPO at layers 1-4. Other models will certainly be tested and probably some of them will succeed, too. However, Netflix without the postal delays or logistics could be compelling, even if it were 1.5-2x the current Netflix pricing. Realistically, we should get to a point in the technology relatively soon where a movie can be shipped across the net for about the same cost as postage today. Owen
Owen DeLong wrote:
Today IPTV is in its infancy and is strictly a novelty for early adopters. As the technology matures and as the market develops an understanding of the possibilities creating pressure on manufacturers and content providers to offer better, it will gradually become compelling.
In case you missed it something we're doing over here... http://uctv.canberra.edu.au/ We have HDTV and quiet a list of channels on campus. Of course licensing/broadcast restrictions (read: lawyers) have a lot stopped at the border, but hey, it's working ;-) Regards, Mat
geoincidents@nls.net ("Geo.") writes:
IDMR is great if you're a broadcaster or a backbone, but how does it help the last 2 miles, the phoneco ATM network or the ISP network where you have 10k different users watching 10k different channels?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-00 is what i expect. note: i've drunk that koolaid & am helping on the distribution side. -- Paul Vixie
At 02:57 PM 2/11/2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
Has anyone considered that perhaps google is not looking at beating Microsoft but instead at beating TIVO, ABC, CBS, Warner Cable, etc?
sure, but...
You can't possibly believe that there is enough bandwidth to stream HD video to everyone, that's just not going to happen any time soon.
...wouldn't there be, if interdomain multicast existed and had a billing model that could lead to a compelling business model? right now, to the best of my knowledge, all large multicast flows are still intradomain.
IP Multicast as a solution to video distribution is a non-starter. IP Multicast for the wide area is a failure. It assumes large numbers of people will watch the same content at the same time. The usage model that could work for it most mimics the broadcast environment before cable TV, when there were anywhere from three to ten channels to choose from, and everyone watched one of those. That model has not made sense in a long time. The proponents of IP Multicast seem to have failed to notice this.
so if tivo and the others wanted to deliver all that crap using IP, would they do what broadcast.com did (lots of splitter/repeater stations), or do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put some capital and preorder into IDMR?
Because people want to watch what THEY want, when THEY want. Even if you consider the possibility of live content, you should indeed look at radio. You can listen to a live stream of huge numbers of radio stations from around the world. If I want to listen to WBCR-LP (a low power community station in Gt. Barrington, Massachusetts) I can tune in easily. It makes no sense to feed it over multicast, as it's doubtful there's more than a handful of others anywhere topographically (network-wise) near me to make it make sense to have routers handling multicast for this stream. The point is the more possible live content there is, the less multicast makes sense. Compounding this, fewer people care to watch live content, preferring instead to record and watch later on their own schedule, or be served on-demand. In this usage model, multicast is not helpful either.
All you need is someone like Cisco to team with who can produce a network consumer DVD player capable of assuming the roll of a physical tivo box, say something like the kiss technology DP-600 box (cisco bought kiss last year) that the MPAA loves so much (MPAA bought thousands of them for their own purposes) and presto things are suddenly taking a whole new shape and direction.
yeah. sadly, that seems like the inevitable direction for the market leaders and disruptors. but i still wonder if a dark horse like IDMR can still emerge among the followers and incumbents (or the next-gen disruptors)?
There may be a dark horse, but I doubt it'll be IDMR. A more likely one, IMO, is cache stuffing by statistical approximation... what I mean by this is best explained by example... the satellite providers could add broadband connectivity to their boxes (the Dish receiver we have does indeed have an Ethernet port, so this isn't difficult to imagine). Where the boxes could use the broadband connection to pull demand content, the higher bandwidth of the satellite link could be used to push the most likely requested content to the hard drives of receivers. Hybrid demand and prediction is just a guess of where we're headed, of course.
So now you get a choice, buy a new HD TV tuner or buy a new DVD player that does standard or HD tv even after the over the air broadcast change happens in the US.
at some point tivo will disable my fast-forward button and i'll give up network TV altogether. irritatingly, hundreds of millions of others will not. but we digress.
Dish has a button that advances 30 seconds per click. Only way to watch anything these days is to have control to fast forward. Better yet, just shoot your TV and read a book. The entertainment value is greater, and it's a lot more energy efficient.
Thus spake "Daniel Senie" <dts@senie.com>
At 02:57 PM 2/11/2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
...wouldn't there be, if interdomain multicast existed and had a billing model that could lead to a compelling business model? right now, to the best of my knowledge, all large multicast flows are still intradomain.
IP Multicast as a solution to video distribution is a non-starter. IP Multicast for the wide area is a failure. It assumes large numbers of people will watch the same content at the same time. The usage model that could work for it most mimics the broadcast environment before cable TV, when there were anywhere from three to ten channels to choose from, and everyone watched one of those. That model has not made sense in a long time. The proponents of IP Multicast seem to have failed to notice this.
IPmc would be useful for sports, news, and other live events. Think about how many people sit around their TVs staring at such things; it's probably a significant fraction of all TV-watching time. Better yet, folks who want to watch particular sports games will be concentrated in the two cities that are playing (i.e. high fanout at the bottom of the tree), which multicast delivery excels at compared to unicast. For non-live content, even if one assumes people want their next episode of "24" on demand, wouldn't it make more sense to multicast it to STBs that are set to record it (or that predict their owners will want to see it), vs. using P2P or direct download? That'll save you gobs and gobs of bandwidth _immediately following the new program's release_. After that majority of viewers get their copy, you can transition the program to another system (e.g. P2P) that is more amenable to on-demand downloading of "old" content. Of course, this is a pointless discussion since residential multicast is virtually non-existent today, and there's no sign of it being imminent. Anyone want to take bets on whether IPmc or IPv6 shows up first? ;-) S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
At 10:02 PM 11-02-07 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
IP Multicast as a solution to video distribution is a non-starter. IP Multicast for the wide area is a failure. It assumes large numbers of people will watch the same content at the same time. The usage model that could work for it most mimics the broadcast environment before cable TV, when there were anywhere from three to ten channels to choose from, and everyone watched one of those. That model has not made sense in a long time. The proponents of IP Multicast seem to have failed to notice this.
I never quite understood why layered multicast never took off which would solved the problems you state above. There have been so many research papers on the subject from the late 90s that I would have thought that by now IPmc would be the silver bullet for video distribution. -Hank
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 10:02 PM 11-02-07 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
IP Multicast as a solution to video distribution is a non-starter. IP Multicast for the wide area is a failure. It assumes large numbers of people will watch the same content at the same time. The usage model that could work for it most mimics the broadcast environment before cable TV, when there were anywhere from three to ten channels to choose from, and everyone watched one of those. That model has not made sense in a long time. The proponents of IP Multicast seem to have failed to notice this.
I never quite understood why layered multicast never took off which would solved the problems you state above. There have been so many research papers on the subject from the late 90s that I would have thought that by now IPmc would be the silver bullet for video distribution.
Inside an organization? Most likely. Hotels could use it, as one example. Also, I don't see why ISPs couldn't group users who use this service together. Still, not that simple and may become impractical by the time we actually need it on a wide scale.
-Hank
I never quite understood why layered multicast never took off which would solved the problems you state above. There have been so many research papers on the subject from the late 90s that I would have thought that by now IPmc would be the silver bullet for video distribution.
as i said earlier, for intranet use, ip multicast is all the rage for video content. i'm fairly sure it was in use at my hotel in cairo last week, and i know it's been deployed in a number of "digital television" networks in asia. it's internet multicast (idmr) that never happened, and as far as i can tell, that's because there's no billing or business model for it.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
I never quite understood why layered multicast never took off which would solved the problems you state above. There have been so many research papers on the subject from the late 90s that I would have thought that by now IPmc would be the silver bullet for video distribution.
as i said earlier, for intranet use, ip multicast is all the rage for video content. i'm fairly sure it was in use at my hotel in cairo last week, and i know it's been deployed in a number of "digital television" networks in asia. it's internet multicast (idmr) that never happened, and as far as i can tell, that's because there's no billing or business model for it.
Why couldn't internet multicast be used for content other than video? Stream Torrents, .mp4 files, etc. Instead of just sending a single video stream at some data rate, stream data files sequentially. Stream owners can post a schedule (or not, just sending a stream of files with metadata headers), your pc-based "TiVo-like" software can tune in (request the stream from your provider, which turns on and off all the streams they receive and only sends requested streams to your "Last Mile" on request) based on that schedule or request. NBC can now stream their shows to me as a .mp4 and I could grab them as fast as they could send it, rather than in realtime. They might offer the same stream at different data rates: 1mbps, 5mbps, 10mbps, 30mbps (for those of us lucky enough to have Verizon FIOS at home). The streams would simply repeat once they streamed all the files in a list. Think of a YouTube stream. As videos are uploaded, they are encoded and sent out an internet multicast stream. It's not a video stream, but a file stream, where one file is sent right after the other, and your end receiver knows what to do with the data. Metadata is put into the file headers so you can scan for content/description. Your "TiVo" can pickup the videos you might like to watch based on your keywords, and now you can watch those videos on your TV on demand, already on your PC. YouTube only had to broadcast it once, and thousands of people who may get the YouTube stream have decided to keep it or not. Sure, it might take up lots of disk space, and analyzing a stream (or 10 simultaneously) might take up a bunch of CPU/memory, but it'd be a way to distribute content efficiently and potentially lower transit bandwidth usage as people started to use it rather than today's status quo. If a channel is popular enough, people ask their provider to carry it. The provider is incentivized to carry a channel if the bandwidth they utilize to serve the unicast version of that data is greater than the amount of data they might use for a single multicasted stream of that same data. Rather than the end user paying for it, the provider saves money by utilizing the stream. Beckman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman@purplecow.com http://www.purplecow.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Peter Beckman wrote:
NBC can now stream their shows to me as a .mp4 and I could grab them as fast as they could send it, rather than in realtime. They might offer the same stream at different data rates: 1mbps, 5mbps, 10mbps, 30mbps (for those of us lucky enough to have Verizon FIOS at home). The streams would simply repeat once they streamed all the files in a list.
That is what layered IPmc is. There is a base stream and on top of that additional "layers" are interleaved and you pick up just what you need - depending on your b/w. There are other facets to layered IPmc such as staggered streams, whereby the same VOD is transmitted 10x an hour, at 6 minute intervals and using clever encoding you "tap" into the multicast stream and within an average of 3 minutes your VOD starts playing - at the level of quality based on your available b/w. I've seen this in action as far back as 1998 and just don't quite grok why it never took off. -Hank
On 2/13/07, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
I've seen this in action as far back as 1998 and just don't quite grok why it never took off.
Let me paraphrase a couple folks who summed it all up very nicely: "So assuming router state based multicast, how do you bill on that if the stream is exploded on the opposite end of, or in the middle of, a transit network?" The simplified answer of "only as the stream actually transiting the network" won't fly with most bean counters, because in their eyes, every packet going through the network should be billed as bandwidth consumed. Multicast turns that notion inside out, because while multicast saves bandwidth generally, the bandwidth multiplies as it transits a for-pay network, meaning that more resources are consumed and thus ... could be billed for money. Traditional v4 multicast, then, is unlikely to see deployment outside of an organiation's own garden network, and you have near zero uptake. Follow the money, as always. :) -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
My CIO is convinced that Google is going to take over the internet and everyone will pay google for access. He also believes that google will release their own protocol some sort of Google IP which everyone will have to pay for also.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:27 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
-Chris, still-waiting-for-the-rapture, wrote as follows:
(or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and no more fiber to push traffic over? wasn't there in fact a hue and cry about a 1) fiber glut, 2) only 4% of all fiber actually lit?)
:-). however, you did seem to miss the hue and cry about how ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO GOOGLE now. a smattering of this can be found at:
* http://www.internetoutsider.com/2006/04/how_much_dark_f.html * http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2005/11/google_ data_cen.html
now as to whether this is true, or whether it's a prevent-defense meant to strangle the redmond folks before the redmond folks know they needed fiber or whether google actually needs the capacity, or whether it's possible to lock up the market for more than couple of years, given that more capacity can be laid in once all the LRU's are signed... who the heck knows or cares?
but hue there has been, and cry also, and measurement weenettes are likely banging their foreheads against their powerbook screens while they read our uninformed "4%" estimates.
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:39:04PM -0800, Joseph Jackson wrote:
My CIO is convinced that Google is going to take over the internet and everyone will pay google for access. He also believes that google will release their own protocol some sort of Google IP which everyone will have to pay for also.
Sounds great. We won't all have to move to IPv6 after all! - mark :-) -- Mark Newton Email: newton@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: newton@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Joseph Jackson wrote:
My CIO is convinced that Google is going to take over the internet and everyone will pay google for access. He also believes that google will release their own protocol some sort of Google IP which everyone will have to pay for also.
You mean like one well known company that tries to make sure everyone pays for most common programs everyone needs when they buy a computer? (you know it did not used to be like that 10 years ago...) As for google, I'd not expect them to charge but new protocol with the following structure will be right their alley: ---------------------------- - destination address - (there is no need for source address ---------------------------- since everything comes from google) - data you asked for - ---------------------------- - data you did not ask for - (google advertisement space) ---------------------------- :) -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
because people can't get more pipe? perhaps next time the news folks could ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network operators? (or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and no more fiber to push traffic over? wasn't there in fact a hue and cry about a 1) fiber glut, 2) only 4% of all fiber actually lit?)
No no... you miss the point. If all lanes are used for the same traffic, no trucks can pass in the tubes! :)
-Chris still-waiting-for-the-rapture
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
(i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?)
Any of us with any sense know the Internet could potentially die tomorrow morning. Any of us with any sense know it could be done in any number of ways, ranging from relatively few well aimed packets to a few thousand bots if used correctly, if not a few hundred if used amazingly well. Any of us with half a sense know that the Internet is not going to die tomorrow and that if it does, something will replace or more likely supplement it. But run out of tubes and trucks? Come on! Traffic jams are solved by bypasses and more lanes. :P
...
A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of the pipes.
...
Paul Vixie wrote:
(i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?)
While I'm sure people were looking for headlines, I think the broader implication in the report was current pricing power not supporting new investment.
...
A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of the pipes.
...
participants (19)
-
brett watson -
Chris L. Morrow -
Daniel Senie -
David W. Hankins -
Gadi Evron -
Geo. -
Hank Nussbacher -
Jim Mercer -
Joel Jaeggli -
Joseph Jackson -
Mark Newton -
Matthew Sullivan -
Owen DeLong -
Paul Vixie -
Paul Vixie -
Peter Beckman -
Stephen Sprunk -
Todd Vierling -
william(at)elan.net