Internet Video: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the US Peering Ecosystem (v1.2)
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@equinix.com> // Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison, Equinix // GSM Mobile: 650-315-8635 // Skype, Y!IM: williambnorton
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 09:08:16AM -0800, William B. Norton wrote:
Hi all -
Over the last year or so I have been working with Internet video companies who asked essentially the same question - "What is the most effective way of distributing massive quantities of Internet (video) traffic?" 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 !
Maybe the future is now:? http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2006-06/msg00357.html taking #16, #21 from the ISP predictions list, perhaps the above is part of that already rearing its head? I think #6 from the content provider list may have come true in part today ;) - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
On 2007-01-09-12:08:16, "William B. Norton" <bill.norton@gmail.com> wrote:
[...] a few of the largest US ISPs are turning away these n*10G Internet video transit customers !
I'd be interested in learning of specific vendors/markets, along with the reasons given. Did they cite temporary capacity constraints, or anything of greater long-term significance? Here in the New York metro, you'd be hard pressed to find a vendor willing to turn away a 10G transit deal and the associated revenue. In the past few months, I've been approached by half a dozen or so major carriers eager to sell 10 gigabit ports, and with the capacity to deliver. If your customers are, indeed, reporting a widespread difficulty obtaining 10 gigabit ports from the larger players, I can think of plenty of smaller ISPs and switch-based resellers who'd be happy to carry their traffic. While I'm greatly interested in Internet video and the need to come up with new ways to deliver it more efficiently, I'd be weary of listing the [lack of] availability of transit ports as contributing factor. -a
On 1/9/07, Adam Rothschild <asr+nanog@latency.net> wrote:
On 2007-01-09-12:08:16, "William B. Norton" <bill.norton@gmail.com> wrote:
[...] a few of the largest US ISPs are turning away these n*10G Internet video transit customers !
I'd be interested in learning of specific vendors/markets, along with the reasons given. Did they cite temporary capacity constraints, or anything of greater long-term significance?
Yea, I found that interesting as well. There were "cascading issues" cited by one Tier 1 ISP. First, the network equipment currently deployed hasn't been paid for and they would have to go back and argue for more $$ for a forklift upgrade. Which leads to the second reason - the colos are out of space/power or both. Usually both. So a forklift upgrade may be needed to replace the current gear with the new monster CRS or better class equipment to handle the emerging n*10G Video traffic demand. 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. 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. Bill
Here in the New York metro, you'd be hard pressed to find a vendor willing to turn away a 10G transit deal and the associated revenue. In the past few months, I've been approached by half a dozen or so major carriers eager to sell 10 gigabit ports, and with the capacity to deliver. If your customers are, indeed, reporting a widespread difficulty obtaining 10 gigabit ports from the larger players, I can think of plenty of smaller ISPs and switch-based resellers who'd be happy to carry their traffic.
While I'm greatly interested in Internet video and the need to come up with new ways to deliver it more efficiently, I'd be weary of listing the [lack of] availability of transit ports as contributing factor.
-a
-- //------------------------------------------------ // William B. Norton <wbn@equinix.com> // Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison, Equinix // GSM Mobile: 650-315-8635 // Skype, Y!IM: williambnorton
On 1/9/07, Adam Rothschild <asr+nanog@latency.net> wrote:
Here in the New York metro, you'd be hard pressed to find a vendor willing to turn away a 10G transit deal and the associated revenue. In the past few months, I've been approached by half a dozen or so major carriers eager to sell 10 gigabit ports, and with the capacity to deliver. If your customers are, indeed, reporting a widespread difficulty obtaining 10 gigabit ports from the larger players, I can think of plenty of smaller ISPs and switch-based resellers who'd be happy to carry their traffic.
Sure they'd be happy too, but can they actually deliver it? It's one thing to sell a 4Gbps commit on a 10GbE port...but 30Gbps across four or five ports is another thing entirely...
participants (4)
-
Aaron Glenn -
Adam Rothschild -
Jared Mauch -
William B. Norton