On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:

On 13-05-14 13:06, Jay Ashworth wrote:

...

http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/netflix-puts-even-more-strain-on-the-in...

they suggest that Akamai and other ISP-side caching is either not affecting these numbers and their pertinence to the "backbone" at all, or not much.

This is from a Sandvine press release. Sandvine measures traffic at the last mile, so it doesn't really know whether a Netflix stream is coming from a local caching server within the carrier's LAN, from a caching server that is peering with the carrier, or via the real internet.

can't the routing data on the network tell them some of this? or even routing data collected from like 'routeviews'? they don't even really need 'live' data as much as daily snapshots to say: "Yea, that network is 3 as-hops away -- it's across the "backbone"". sounds like lazy research...

In the case of a large ISP with a Netflix cache server accessible locally, (either in-house, or via peering at a local carrier hotel), the traffic doesn't really travel on the internet.

and that fact ought to be visible in the local routing system and/or global system.

But for smaller ISPs, the traffic will travel on the internet between the nearest cache server and their facilities.

Because of caching, the load on the actual internet won't increase as much as the amoount streamed onto last mile infrastructure.

one hopes. (providing cache-hit is above a few percent) -chris

On 13-05-14 20:55, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

Since when is peering not part of the Internet?

Yes, one car argue that an device with an IP address routable from the internet is part of the internet. But when traffic from a cahe server flows directly into an ISP's intranet to end users, it doesn't really make use of the "Internet" nor does it cost the ISP transit capacity. Compare this to a small ISP in a city where there are no cache servers. Reaching netfix involves using paid transit to reach the nearest point where Netflix has a cache server. So traffic truly travels on the internet.

But when traffic from a cahe server flows directly into an ISP's intranet to end users, it doesn't really make use of the "Internet" nor does it cost

On May 14, 2013, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote: the ISP transit capacity.

Compare this to a small ISP in a city where there are no cache servers. Reaching netfix involves using paid transit to reach the nearest point where Netflix has a cache server. So traffic truly travels on the internet.

We're a small ISP and we reach lot of content via peering just fine. Lot of these contents that you speak of (Netflix, Akamai, et al) have open peering policies and are present in more exchange points than anybody else. james

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:

On 13-05-15 06:24, james@towardex.com wrote:

...

We're a small ISP and we reach lot of content via peering just fine. Lot of these contents that you speak of (Netflix, Akamai, et al) have open peering policies and are present in more exchange points than anybody else.

Not all ISPs are fortunate enough to be in a town where there is an active exchange with Netflix/Akamai/Google presence.

For instance, Montréal just recently oopened a peering exchange. While this will eventually allow local ISPs to peer with the big content providers, until this happens, small ISPs have to get that content via paid transit links.

or via some cooperative arrangement with another IX participant, no?

Toronto has "local" content available via peering so smaller ISPs can benefit from that. But not every city has that chance.

Netflix's policy does require a minimum amount of traffic before an ISP can deploy an Open Connect appliance. So smaller ISPs are at a disadvantage if they are located in a city without CDN presence.

Not all ISPs are fortunate enough to be in a town where there is an active exchange with Netflix/Akamai/Google presence. For instance, Montréal just recently oopened a peering exchange. While this will eventually allow local ISPs to peer with the big content providers, until this happens, small ISPs have to get that content via paid transit links.

lolwut? Montreal isn't a small town, just not developed on peering side. What's the cost of upgrading your IP transit in Montreal or getting a 10G wave to Toronto for peering w/ content nowadays? Not very much. james

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 09:14:56PM -0400, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:

On 13-05-14 20:55, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

...

Since when is peering not part of the Internet?

Yes, one car argue that an device with an IP address routable from the internet is part of the internet.

But when traffic from a cahe server flows directly into an ISP's intranet to end users, it doesn't really make use of the "Internet" nor does it cost the ISP transit capacity.

So it's only on the Internet if it uses a provider's transit capacity? So if ISP1 and ISP2 are customers of ISP3 (and ISP3 is the only provider-to-provider connection for ISP1 and ISP2), then traffic between a customer of ISP1 and a customer of ISP2 is on the "Internet"? What if ISP1 and ISP2 then setup a private peering connection? Is traffic between ISP1 and ISP2 still on "the Internet", or is that reserved for traffic over paid transit? And if that's still "on the Internet", what happens if ISP1 then buys IPS2? Does the traffic between them cease to be "on the Internet" now that it's the same company? And, if you define "on the Internet" to mean "goes over paid transit", then the only traffic that is on the Internet is traffic to ISPs who have paid transit. Traffic between end customers of two Tier 1 providers (defined as "providers who don't pay for any transit" for the purposes of this message) would never be "on the Internet"? (I assume "transit", if that's your threshold, is "transit paid for by a provider". End user connections are essentially paid transit, even though it's not typically called that, especially at the lower end.) The point is: I don't think you definition works. Could post exactly what your definition of "on the Internet" is (as opposed to just enumerating examples of things you think are on the internet and things you think are not on the Internet)? -- Brett

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:

On 13-05-15 09:02, Brett Frankenberger wrote:

...

So it's only on the Internet if it uses a provider's transit capacity?

I made the statement in a context of "the internet is crumbling under the Netflix load". There have been many media reports over the years of

is it? it seems ok so far...

the internet unable to cope with the explosion of traffic.

'internet doom, news at 11' ? i don't think there's as much of a problem as news folk want us all to believe. I also bet that as problems arise, folk route around them with better/closer/cheaper peering, no?

On 13-05-15 14:07, Owen DeLong wrote:

If we, as network engineers can't agree on the nature and definition of the internet, how can we possibly expect the media to understand it?

When someone cuts a cable in the meditarenean, the media doesn't say "the internet has crawled to a snail's pace", it says "internet connections in the middle east are very slow". If DNS servers at Comcast fail, one doesn't say "the internet has suffered a failure". Generally , if one uses the expression "the internet", it would generally mean the generic term which encompasses the whole internet. So you can state "Syria is disconnected from the internet". If root servers went down around the world, then one could state that "the internet has suffered a failure".