Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
If this application takes off, I have to presume that everyone's baseline network usage metrics can be tossed out the window... Thomas From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: Using Venice Project? Better get yourself a non-capping ISP... Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:11:46 -0500 Begin forwarded message: From: "D.H. van der Woude" <dirkvanderwoude@gmail.com> Date: January 5, 2007 11:06:31 AM EST To: dave@farber.net Subject: Using Venice Project? Better get yourself a non-capping ISP... I am one of Venice' beta testers. Works like a charm, admittedly with a 20/1 Mbs ADSL2+ connection and a unlimited use ISP. Even at sub-DVD quality the data use is staggering... Venice Project would break many users' ISP conditions http://www.out-law.com/page-7604 OUT-LAW News, 03/01/2007 Internet television system The Venice Project could break users' monthly internet bandwith limits in hours, according to the team behind it. It downloads 320 megabytes (MB) per hour from users' computers, meaning that users could reach their monthly download limits in hours and that it could be unusable for bandwidth-capped users. The Venice Project is the new system being developed by Janus Friis and Niklas Zennström, the Scandinavian entrepreneurs behind the revolutionary services Kazaa and Skype. It is currently being used by 6,000 beta testers and is due to be launched next year. The data transfer rate is revealed in the documentation sent to beta testers and the instructions make it very clear what the bandwidth requirements are so that users are not caught out. Under a banner saying 'Important notice for users with limits on their internet usage', the document says: "The Venice Project is a streaming video application, and so uses a relatively high amount of bandwidth per hour. One hour of viewing is 320MB downloaded and 105 Megabytes uploaded, which means that it will exhaust a 1 Gigabyte cap in 10 hours. Also, the application continues to run in the background after you close the main window." "For this reason, if you pay for your bandwidth usage per megabyte or have your usage capped by your ISP, you should be careful to always exit the Venice Project client completely when you are finished watching it," says the document Many ISPs offer broadband connections which are unlimited to use by time, but have limits on the amount of data that can be transferred over the connection each month. Though limits are 'advisory' and not strict, users who regularly far exceed the limits break the terms of their deals. BT's most basic broadband package BT Total Broadband Package 1, for example, has a 2GB monthly 'usage guideline'. This would be reached after 20 hours of viewing. The software is also likely to transfer data even when not being used. The Venice system is going to run on a peer-to-peer (P2P) network, which means that users host and send the programmes to other users in an automated system. OUT-LAW has seen screenshots from the system and talked to one of the testers of it, who reports very favourably on its use. "This is going to be the one. I've used some of the other software out there and it's fine, but my dad could use this, they've just got it right," he said. "It looks great, you fire it up and in two minutes you're live, you're watching television." The source said that claims being made for the system being "near high definition" in terms of picture quality are wide of the mark. "It's not high definition. It's the same as normal television," he said. -- "Private where private belongs, public where it's needed, and an admission that circumstances alter cases." Robert A. Heinlein, 1969 -- Thomas Leavitt - thomas@thomasleavitt.org - 831-295-3917 (cell) *** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA ***
At 01:52 AM 1/6/2007, Thomas Leavitt <thomas@thomasleavitt.org> wrote:
If this application takes off, I have to presume that everyone's baseline network usage metrics can be tossed out the window...
Interesting. Why does it send so much data? Is it a peer to peer type of system where it redistributes a portion of the stream as you are viewing it to other users? R Tellurian Networks - Global Hosting Solutions Since 1995 http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
Howdy, On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 03:18:03AM -0500, Robert Boyle wrote:
At 01:52 AM 1/6/2007, Thomas Leavitt <thomas@thomasleavitt.org> wrote:
If this application takes off, I have to presume that everyone's baseline network usage metrics can be tossed out the window...
Interesting. Why does it send so much data? Is it a peer to peer type of system where it redistributes a portion of the stream as you are viewing it to other users?
"The Venice Project is the new system being developed by Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstr?m, the Scandinavian entrepreneurs behind the revolutionary services Kazaa and Skype." That's probably a safe assumption. :) Cheers, Trent
R
Tellurian Networks - Global Hosting Solutions Since 1995 http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
There's also Democracy - http://www.getdemocracy.org Open source TV-over-IP suite including edit tools, server, and client. For these purposes, more interesting is that the transport layer is BitTorrent, so yup, if you're receiving you're also sending. On 1/6/07, Trent Lloyd <lathiat@bur.st> wrote:
Howdy,
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 03:18:03AM -0500, Robert Boyle wrote:
At 01:52 AM 1/6/2007, Thomas Leavitt <thomas@thomasleavitt.org> wrote:
If this application takes off, I have to presume that everyone's baseline network usage metrics can be tossed out the window...
Interesting. Why does it send so much data? Is it a peer to peer type of system where it redistributes a portion of the stream as you are viewing it to other users?
"The Venice Project is the new system being developed by Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstr?m, the Scandinavian entrepreneurs behind the revolutionary services Kazaa and Skype."
That's probably a safe assumption. :)
Cheers, Trent
R
Tellurian Networks - Global Hosting Solutions Since 1995 http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 03:18:03AM -0500, Robert Boyle wrote:
At 01:52 AM 1/6/2007, Thomas Leavitt <thomas@thomasleavitt.org> wrote:
If this application takes off, I have to presume that everyone's baseline network usage metrics can be tossed out the window...
That's a strong possibility :-) I'm currently the network person for The Venice Project, and busy building out our network, but also involved in the design and planning work and a bunch of other things. I'll try and answer any questions I can, I may be a little restricted in revealing details of forthcoming developments and so on, so please forgive me if there's later something I can't answer, but for now I'll try and answer any of the technicalities. Our philosophy is to pretty open about how we work and what we do. We're actually working on more general purpose explanations of all this, which we'll be putting on-line soon. I'm not from our PR dept, or a spokesperson, just a long-time NANOG reader and ocasional poster answering technical stuff here, so please don't just post the archive link to digg/slashdot or whatever. The Venice Project will affect network operators and we're working on a range of different things which may help out there. We've designed our traffic to be easily categorisable (I wish we could mark a DSCP, but the levels of access needed on some platforms are just too restrictive) and we know how the real internet works. Already we have aggregate per-AS usage statistics, and have some primitive network proximity clustering. AS-level clustering is planned. This will reduce transit costs, but there's not much we can do for other infrastructural, L2 or last-mile costs. We're L3 and above only. Additionally, we predict a healthy chunk of usage will go to our "Long tail servers", which are explained a bit here; http://www.vipeers.com/vipeers/2007/01/venice_project_.html and in the next 6 months or so, we hope to turn up at IX's and arrange private peerings to defray the transit cost of that traffic too. Right now, our main transit provider is BT (AS5400) who are at some well-known IX's.
Interesting. Why does it send so much data?
It's full-screen TV-quality video :-) After adding all the overhead for p2p protocol and stream resilience we still only use a maximum of 320MB per viewing hour. The more popular the content is, the more sources it can be pulled from and the less redundant data we send, and that number can be as low as 220MB per hour viewed. (Actually, I find this a tough thing to explain to people in general; it's really counterintuitive to see that more peers == less bandwidth - I'm still searching for a useful user-facing metaphor, anyone got any ideas?). To put that in context; a 45 minute episode grabbed from a file-sharing network will generally eat 350MB on-disk, obviously slightly more is used after you account for even the 2% TCP/IP overhead and p2p protocol headers. And it will usually take longer than 45 minutes to get there. Compressed digital telivision works out at between 900MB and 3GB an hour viewed (raw is in the tens of gigabytes). DVD is of the same order. YouTube works out at about 80MB to 230MB per-hour, for a mini-screen (though I'm open to correction on that, I've just multiplied the bitrates out).
Is it a peer to peer type of system where it redistributes a portion of the stream as you are viewing it to other users?
Yes, though not neccessarily as you are viewing it. A proportion of what you have viewed previously is cached and can be made available to other peers. -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
Note that 220 MB per hour (ugly units) is 489 Kbps, slightly less than our current usage.
The more popular the content is, the more sources it can be pulled from and the less redundant data we send, and that number can be as low as 220MB per hour viewed. (Actually, I find this a tough thing to explain to people in general; it's really counterintuitive to see that more peers == less bandwidth - I'm still searching for a useful user-facing metaphor, anyone got any ideas?).
Why not just say, the more peers, the more efficient it becomes as it approaches the bandwidth floor set by the chosen streaming ? Regards Marshall On Jan 6, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 03:18:03AM -0500, Robert Boyle wrote:
At 01:52 AM 1/6/2007, Thomas Leavitt <thomas@thomasleavitt.org> wrote:
If this application takes off, I have to presume that everyone's baseline network usage metrics can be tossed out the window...
That's a strong possibility :-)
I'm currently the network person for The Venice Project, and busy building out our network, but also involved in the design and planning work and a bunch of other things.
I'll try and answer any questions I can, I may be a little restricted in revealing details of forthcoming developments and so on, so please forgive me if there's later something I can't answer, but for now I'll try and answer any of the technicalities. Our philosophy is to pretty open about how we work and what we do.
We're actually working on more general purpose explanations of all this, which we'll be putting on-line soon. I'm not from our PR dept, or a spokesperson, just a long-time NANOG reader and ocasional poster answering technical stuff here, so please don't just post the archive link to digg/slashdot or whatever.
The Venice Project will affect network operators and we're working on a range of different things which may help out there. We've designed our traffic to be easily categorisable (I wish we could mark a DSCP, but the levels of access needed on some platforms are just too restrictive) and we know how the real internet works. Already we have aggregate per-AS usage statistics, and have some primitive network proximity clustering. AS-level clustering is planned.
This will reduce transit costs, but there's not much we can do for other infrastructural, L2 or last-mile costs. We're L3 and above only. Additionally, we predict a healthy chunk of usage will go to our "Long tail servers", which are explained a bit here;
http://www.vipeers.com/vipeers/2007/01/venice_project_.html
and in the next 6 months or so, we hope to turn up at IX's and arrange private peerings to defray the transit cost of that traffic too. Right now, our main transit provider is BT (AS5400) who are at some well-known IX's.
Interesting. Why does it send so much data?
It's full-screen TV-quality video :-) After adding all the overhead for p2p protocol and stream resilience we still only use a maximum of 320MB per viewing hour.
The more popular the content is, the more sources it can be pulled from and the less redundant data we send, and that number can be as low as 220MB per hour viewed. (Actually, I find this a tough thing to explain to people in general; it's really counterintuitive to see that more peers == less bandwidth - I'm still searching for a useful user-facing metaphor, anyone got any ideas?).
To put that in context; a 45 minute episode grabbed from a file- sharing network will generally eat 350MB on-disk, obviously slightly more is used after you account for even the 2% TCP/IP overhead and p2p protocol headers. And it will usually take longer than 45 minutes to get there.
Compressed digital telivision works out at between 900MB and 3GB an hour viewed (raw is in the tens of gigabytes). DVD is of the same order. YouTube works out at about 80MB to 230MB per-hour, for a mini-screen (though I'm open to correction on that, I've just multiplied the bitrates out).
Is it a peer to peer type of system where it redistributes a portion of the stream as you are viewing it to other users?
Yes, though not neccessarily as you are viewing it. A proportion of what you have viewed previously is cached and can be made available to other peers.
-- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm +pgp@stdlib.net
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 09:25:27AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Note that 220 MB per hour (ugly units) is 489 Kbps, slightly less than our current usage.
Oh I should be clear too. We use SI powers of 10, just like for bandwidth, not powers of two like for storage. We quote in Megabytes because caps are usually in gigabytes, so it's more clear for users. -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
On Jan 6, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 09:25:27AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Note that 220 MB per hour (ugly units) is 489 Kbps, slightly less than our current usage.
Oh I should be clear too. We use SI powers of 10, just like for bandwidth, not powers of two like for storage.
A man after my own heart...
We quote in Megabytes because caps are usually in gigabytes, so it's more clear for users.
-- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm +pgp@stdlib.net
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 02:35:25PM +0000, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Oh I should be clear too. We use SI powers of 10, just like for bandwidth, not powers of two like for storage. We quote in Megabytes because caps are usually in gigabytes, so it's more clear for users.
IEC 60027-2 prefixes eliminate the ambiguity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix Basically, to make base-2, replace letters 3 and 4 of the prefix with "bi" for binary. -- ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' -- Albert Einstein -><- <URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/>
On 6-jan-2007, at 15:07, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Is it a peer to peer type of system where it redistributes a portion of the stream as you are viewing it to other users?
Yes, though not neccessarily as you are viewing it. A proportion of what you have viewed previously is cached and can be made available to other peers.
This is a really weird service. It sends out semi-live streams (as opposed to downloads) but it can be cached and made available later, it's also peer-to-peer but needs a massive network or at least massive amounts of peering. With Bittorrent, it's typical for people to download faster than they upload, and then continue to upload for some time after they've finished downloading. This works very well as long as not everyone starts downloading at the same time. However, for something with time constraints this doesn't work so well. Either you're limited by the maximum up speed, which generally isn't enough to support decent video, or the peer-to-peer aspect can only take care of part of the required total upload capacity so there must be additional servers to take care of the rest. I'm guessing the latter is the case here, and this new service works much the same way as Skype in the sense that it will plunder people's upload capacity for the benefit of the people running the network, rather than being a real peer-to-peer service. ISPs should of course welcome this, because when people start craving their daily 2 GB fix you got them exactly where you want them, especially in markets with little or no broadband competition.
Colm: What does the Venice project see in terms of the number of upstreams required to feed one view, and how much does the size of upstream pipe affect this all? Do you see trends where 10 upstreams can feed one view if they are at 100 kbps each as opposed to 5 upstreams and 200 kbps each, or is it no tight relation? Supposedly FTTH-rich countries contribute much more to P2P networks because they have a symmetrical connection and are more attractive to the P2P clients. And how much does being in the same AS help compare to being geographically or hopwise apart? Regards, Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Colm MacCarthaigh Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 8:08 AM To: Robert Boyle Cc: Thomas Leavitt; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 03:18:03AM -0500, Robert Boyle wrote:
At 01:52 AM 1/6/2007, Thomas Leavitt <thomas@thomasleavitt.org> wrote:
If this application takes off, I have to presume that everyone's baseline network usage metrics can be tossed out the window...
That's a strong possibility :-) I'm currently the network person for The Venice Project, and busy building out our network, but also involved in the design and planning work and a bunch of other things. I'll try and answer any questions I can, I may be a little restricted in revealing details of forthcoming developments and so on, so please forgive me if there's later something I can't answer, but for now I'll try and answer any of the technicalities. Our philosophy is to pretty open about how we work and what we do. We're actually working on more general purpose explanations of all this, which we'll be putting on-line soon. I'm not from our PR dept, or a spokesperson, just a long-time NANOG reader and ocasional poster answering technical stuff here, so please don't just post the archive link to digg/slashdot or whatever. The Venice Project will affect network operators and we're working on a range of different things which may help out there. We've designed our traffic to be easily categorisable (I wish we could mark a DSCP, but the levels of access needed on some platforms are just too restrictive) and we know how the real internet works. Already we have aggregate per-AS usage statistics, and have some primitive network proximity clustering. AS-level clustering is planned. This will reduce transit costs, but there's not much we can do for other infrastructural, L2 or last-mile costs. We're L3 and above only. Additionally, we predict a healthy chunk of usage will go to our "Long tail servers", which are explained a bit here; http://www.vipeers.com/vipeers/2007/01/venice_project_.html and in the next 6 months or so, we hope to turn up at IX's and arrange private peerings to defray the transit cost of that traffic too. Right now, our main transit provider is BT (AS5400) who are at some well-known IX's.
Interesting. Why does it send so much data?
It's full-screen TV-quality video :-) After adding all the overhead for p2p protocol and stream resilience we still only use a maximum of 320MB per viewing hour. The more popular the content is, the more sources it can be pulled from and the less redundant data we send, and that number can be as low as 220MB per hour viewed. (Actually, I find this a tough thing to explain to people in general; it's really counterintuitive to see that more peers == less bandwidth - I'm still searching for a useful user-facing metaphor, anyone got any ideas?). To put that in context; a 45 minute episode grabbed from a file-sharing network will generally eat 350MB on-disk, obviously slightly more is used after you account for even the 2% TCP/IP overhead and p2p protocol headers. And it will usually take longer than 45 minutes to get there. Compressed digital telivision works out at between 900MB and 3GB an hour viewed (raw is in the tens of gigabytes). DVD is of the same order. YouTube works out at about 80MB to 230MB per-hour, for a mini-screen (though I'm open to correction on that, I've just multiplied the bitrates out).
Is it a peer to peer type of system where it redistributes a portion of the stream as you are viewing it to other users?
Yes, though not neccessarily as you are viewing it. A proportion of what you have viewed previously is cached and can be made available to other peers. -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 08:46:41PM -0600, Frank Bulk wrote:
What does the Venice project see in terms of the number of upstreams required to feed one view,
At least 3, but more can participate to improve resilience against partial stream loss.
and how much does the size of upstream pipe affect this all?
If the application doesn't have enough upstream bandwidth to send a proportion of the stream, then it won't. Right now, even if there was infinite upstream bandwidth, there are hard-coded limits, we've been changing these slightly as we put the application through more and more QA. I think right now it's still limited to at most ~220Kbit/sec, that's what I see on our test cluster, but I'll get back to you if I'm wrong. Detecting upstream capacity with UDP streams is always a bit hard, we don't want to flood the link, we have other control traffic (renegotiating peers, grabbing checksums, and so on) which needs to keep working so that video keeps playing smoothly for the user, which is what matters more. If the application is left running long enough with good upstream, it may elect to become a supernode, but that is control traffic only, rather than streaming. Our supernodes are not relays, they act as coordinators of peers. I don't have hard data yet on how much bandwidth these use, because it depends on how often people change channels, fast-forward and that kind of thing but our own supernodes which presently manage the entire network use about 300 Kbit/sec. But once again, the realities of the internet mean that in order to ensure a good user experience, we need to engineer against the lowest common denominator, not the highest. So if the supernode bandwidth creeps up, we may have to look at increasing the proportion of supernodes in the network to bring it back down again, so that packet-loss from supernodes doesn't become an operational problem.
Do you see trends where 10 upstreams can feed one view if they are at 100 kbps each as opposed to 5 upstreams and 200 kbps each, or is it no tight relation?
We do that now, though our numbers are lower :-)
Supposedly FTTH-rich countries contribute much more to P2P networks because they have a symmetrical connection and are more attractive to the P2P clients.
And how much does being in the same AS help compare to being geographically or hopwise apart?
That we don't yet know for sure. I've been reading a lot of research on it, and doing some experimentation, but there is a high degree of correlation between intra-AS routing and lower latency and greater capacity. Certainly a better correlation than geographic proximity. Using AS proximity is definitely a help for resilience though, same-AS sources and adjacent AS sources are more likely to remain reachable in the event of transit problems, general BGP flaps and so on. -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
Dear Colm; On Jan 7, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 08:46:41PM -0600, Frank Bulk wrote:
What does the Venice project see in terms of the number of upstreams required to feed one view,
<snip>
Supposedly FTTH-rich countries contribute much more to P2P networks because they have a symmetrical connection and are more attractive to the P2P clients.
And how much does being in the same AS help compare to being geographically or hopwise apart?
That we don't yet know for sure. I've been reading a lot of research on it, and doing some experimentation, but there is a high degree of correlation between intra-AS routing and lower latency and greater capacity. Certainly a better correlation than geographic proximity.
As is frequently pointed out, here and elsewhere, network topology != geography.
Using AS proximity is definitely a help for resilience though, same-AS sources and adjacent AS sources are more likely to remain reachable in the event of transit problems, general BGP flaps and so on.
Do you actually inject any BGP information into Venice ? How do you determine otherwise that two nodes are in the same AS (do you, for example, assume that if they are in the same /24 then they are close in network topology) ?
-- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm +pgp@stdlib.net
Regards Marshall
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 09:09:27AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Using AS proximity is definitely a help for resilience though, same-AS sources and adjacent AS sources are more likely to remain reachable in the event of transit problems, general BGP flaps and so on.
Do you actually inject any BGP information into Venice ?
yes and no, there is topology information there, but it's based on snapshots. Dyanamic is the next step. -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
On Jan 6, 2007, at 6:07 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
I'll try and answer any questions I can, I may be a little restricted in revealing details of forthcoming developments and so on, so please forgive me if there's later something I can't answer, but for now I'll try and answer any of the technicalities. Our philosophy is to pretty open about how we work and what we do.
Colm, a few random questions as they came to mind: [;>] Will your downloads be encrypted/obfuscated? Will your application be port-agile? Is it HTTP, or Something Else? If it's not encrypted, will you be cache-friendly? Will you be supporting/enforcing some form of DRM? Will you be multi-platform? If so, which ones? When you say 'TV', do you mean HDTV? If so, 1080i/1080p? Will you have Skype-like 'supernode' functionality? If so, will it be user-configurable? Will you insert ads into the content? If so, will you offer a revenue-sharing model for SPs who wish to participate? Many thanks! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
On Jan 7, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
Colm, a few random questions as they came to mind: [;>]
Two more questions: Do you plan to offer the Venice Project for mobile devices? If so, which ones? Will you support offline storage/playback? Thanks again! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 12:35:54PM -0800, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Jan 7, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
Colm, a few random questions as they came to mind: [;>]
Two more questions:
Do you plan to offer the Venice Project for mobile devices? If so, which ones?
Will you support offline storage/playback?
Now comes the "please forgive me" part, but most of your questions arn't relevant to the NANOG charter, so you're going to have to mail our PR dept for answers (see: http://www.theveniceproject.com/contact.html). Answers to nearly all of them will be online soon anyway on our website, we're not trying to hide anything, but this isn't the place :-) I'll try to answer the questions which are relevant to Network Operations, and I have not already answered, anyway; We use a very small set of ports, currently; TCP ports 80 and 443 - for various http requests TCP/UDP port 33333 - for p2p control traffic and streaming TCP port port 5223 - for our jabber-powered channel-chat. UDP port 10000 - for error reporting and usage tracking. This port is short term. Port 33333 is not fixed, and we should be making an IANA request soonish and then we'll change it, but again to just one port. So I guess we're not port-agile :-) We use HTTP(s) requests for making content searches, fetching thumbnails and so on. Right now, these requests are not cacheable, but are pretty small. Every peer is a cache, so in that sense we are cache friendly, but our protocol is not cacheable/proxyable by a man in the middle. -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
On Jan 7, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
Now comes the "please forgive me" part, but most of your questions arn't relevant to the NANOG charter
I believe that's open to interpretation - for example, the question about mobile devices is relevant to mobile SPs, the question about offline viewing has an impact on perceived network usage patterns, the 'supernode' questions same, the TV vs. HDTV question, same (size/ length), the DRM question same (help desk/supportability), platforms same (help desk/supportability). The ad question is is actually out- of-charter, though I suspect of great interest to many of the list subscribers Now, if you don't *want* to answer the above questions, that's perfectly fine; but they're certainly within the list charter, and entirely relevant to network operations, heh. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
On Jan 7, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
I'll try to answer the questions which are relevant to Network Operations, and I have not already answered, anyway
And thank you very much for popping up and answering the questions you *can* answer - it's useful info, and much appreciated! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
Hello; On Jan 6, 2007, at 1:52 AM, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
If this application takes off, I have to presume that everyone's baseline network usage metrics can be tossed out the window...
Thomas
You should probably do that anyway, if you are worried about Venice, because Venice is just a video service. 320 megabytes (MB) / hour is 711 Kbps, which is comparable to pretty much any high quality video streaming service. My AmericaFree.TV streaming service offers right now, for example, 500 Kbps and 250 Kbps simulcast video streaming, with trials of 1 Mbps HD, and users consistently pick the higher bit rate by a 3:1 to 4:1 margin. (See http://www.americafree.tv/audience/ QTSS_statistics.video1.total.png for an example of how stable this user choice is.) P2P is a bandwidth sharing mechanism, not a audience generation mechanism. As streaming video takes off, it will use more or less the same amounts of bandwidth, P2P or no, as long as the underlying transport is unicast, not multicast, because the bandwidth usage is ultimately determined by the audience. (At least we offer multicast simulcasts. If you don't like our bandwidth usage, enable multicast.) Regards Marshall
From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: Using Venice Project? Better get yourself a non-capping ISP... Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:11:46 -0500
Begin forwarded message:
From: "D.H. van der Woude" <dirkvanderwoude@gmail.com> Date: January 5, 2007 11:06:31 AM EST To: dave@farber.net Subject: Using Venice Project? Better get yourself a non-capping ISP...
I am one of Venice' beta testers. Works like a charm, admittedly with a 20/1 Mbs ADSL2+ connection and a unlimited use ISP.
Even at sub-DVD quality the data use is staggering...
Venice Project would break many users' ISP conditions http://www.out-law.com/page-7604 OUT-LAW News, 03/01/2007
Internet television system The Venice Project could break users' monthly internet bandwith limits in hours, according to the team behind it.
It downloads 320 megabytes (MB) per hour from users' computers, meaning that users could reach their monthly download limits in hours and that it could be unusable for bandwidth-capped users.
The Venice Project is the new system being developed by Janus Friis and Niklas Zennström, the Scandinavian entrepreneurs behind the revolutionary services Kazaa and Skype. It is currently being used by 6,000 beta testers and is due to be launched next year.
The data transfer rate is revealed in the documentation sent to beta testers and the instructions make it very clear what the bandwidth requirements are so that users are not caught out.
Under a banner saying 'Important notice for users with limits on their internet usage', the document says: "The Venice Project is a streaming video application, and so uses a relatively high amount of bandwidth per hour. One hour of viewing is 320MB downloaded and 105 Megabytes uploaded, which means that it will exhaust a 1 Gigabyte cap in 10 hours. Also, the application continues to run in the background after you close the main window."
"For this reason, if you pay for your bandwidth usage per megabyte or have your usage capped by your ISP, you should be careful to always exit the Venice Project client completely when you are finished watching it," says the document
Many ISPs offer broadband connections which are unlimited to use by time, but have limits on the amount of data that can be transferred over the connection each month. Though limits are 'advisory' and not strict, users who regularly far exceed the limits break the terms of their deals.
BT's most basic broadband package BT Total Broadband Package 1, for example, has a 2GB monthly 'usage guideline'. This would be reached after 20 hours of viewing.
The software is also likely to transfer data even when not being used. The Venice system is going to run on a peer-to-peer (P2P) network, which means that users host and send the programmes to other users in an automated system.
OUT-LAW has seen screenshots from the system and talked to one of the testers of it, who reports very favourably on its use. "This is going to be the one. I've used some of the other software out there and it's fine, but my dad could use this, they've just got it right," he said. "It looks great, you fire it up and in two minutes you're live, you're watching television."
The source said that claims being made for the system being "near high definition" in terms of picture quality are wide of the mark. "It's not high definition. It's the same as normal television," he said.
-- "Private where private belongs, public where it's needed, and an admission that circumstances alter cases." Robert A. Heinlein, 1969
-- Thomas Leavitt - thomas@thomasleavitt.org - 831-295-3917 (cell)
*** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA ***
<thomas.vcf>
You know, when it's all said and done, streaming video may be the motivator for migrating the large scale Internet to IPv6. I do not see unicast streaming as a long term solution for video service. In the short term, unicast streaming and PushVoD models may prevail, but the ultimate solution is Internet-wide multicasting. I want my m6bone. :-) Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 6, 2007, at 1:52 AM, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
If this application takes off, I have to presume that everyone's baseline network usage metrics can be tossed out the window...
Thomas
From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: Using Venice Project? Better get yourself a non-capping ISP... Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:11:46 -0500
Begin forwarded message:
From: "D.H. van der Woude" <dirkvanderwoude@gmail.com> Date: January 5, 2007 11:06:31 AM EST To: dave@farber.net Subject: Using Venice Project? Better get yourself a non-capping ISP...
I am one of Venice' beta testers. Works like a charm, admittedly with a 20/1 Mbs ADSL2+ connection and a unlimited use ISP.
Even at sub-DVD quality the data use is staggering...
Venice Project would break many users' ISP conditions http://www.out-law.com/page-7604 OUT-LAW News, 03/01/2007
Internet television system The Venice Project could break users' monthly internet bandwith limits in hours, according to the team behind it.
It downloads 320 megabytes (MB) per hour from users' computers, meaning that users could reach their monthly download limits in hours and that it could be unusable for bandwidth-capped users.
The Venice Project is the new system being developed by Janus Friis and Niklas Zennström, the Scandinavian entrepreneurs behind the revolutionary services Kazaa and Skype. It is currently being used by 6,000 beta testers and is due to be launched next year.
The data transfer rate is revealed in the documentation sent to beta testers and the instructions make it very clear what the bandwidth requirements are so that users are not caught out.
Under a banner saying 'Important notice for users with limits on their internet usage', the document says: "The Venice Project is a streaming video application, and so uses a relatively high amount of bandwidth per hour. One hour of viewing is 320MB downloaded and 105 Megabytes uploaded, which means that it will exhaust a 1 Gigabyte cap in 10 hours. Also, the application continues to run in the background after you close the main window."
"For this reason, if you pay for your bandwidth usage per megabyte or have your usage capped by your ISP, you should be careful to always exit the Venice Project client completely when you are finished watching it," says the document
Many ISPs offer broadband connections which are unlimited to use by time, but have limits on the amount of data that can be transferred over the connection each month. Though limits are 'advisory' and not strict, users who regularly far exceed the limits break the terms of their deals.
BT's most basic broadband package BT Total Broadband Package 1, for example, has a 2GB monthly 'usage guideline'. This would be reached after 20 hours of viewing.
The software is also likely to transfer data even when not being used. The Venice system is going to run on a peer-to-peer (P2P) network, which means that users host and send the programmes to other users in an automated system.
OUT-LAW has seen screenshots from the system and talked to one of the testers of it, who reports very favourably on its use. "This is going to be the one. I've used some of the other software out there and it's fine, but my dad could use this, they've just got it right," he said. "It looks great, you fire it up and in two minutes you're live, you're watching television."
The source said that claims being made for the system being "near high definition" in terms of picture quality are wide of the mark. "It's not high definition. It's the same as normal television," he said.
-- "Private where private belongs, public where it's needed, and an admission that circumstances alter cases." Robert A. Heinlein, 1969
-- Thomas Leavitt - thomas@thomasleavitt.org - 831-295-3917 (cell)
*** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA ***
<thomas.vcf>
Dear Gian; On Jan 7, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Gian Constantine wrote:
You know, when it's all said and done, streaming video may be the motivator for migrating the large scale Internet to IPv6. I do not see unicast streaming as a long term solution for video service. In the short term, unicast streaming and PushVoD models may prevail, but the ultimate solution is Internet-wide multicasting.
I want my m6bone. :-)
Well, help make it possible. Join the MboneD WG list. Help us recharter. Come to Prague, even, if you can. BTW, have you taken the multicast survey : http://www.multicasttech.com/survey/MBoneD_Survey_v_1_5.txt http://www.multicasttech.com/survey/MBoneD_Survey_v_1_5.pdf ? Regards Marshall
Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc.
On Jan 6, 2007, at 1:52 AM, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
If this application takes off, I have to presume that everyone's baseline network usage metrics can be tossed out the window...
Thomas
From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: Using Venice Project? Better get yourself a non-capping ISP... Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:11:46 -0500
Begin forwarded message:
From: "D.H. van der Woude" <dirkvanderwoude@gmail.com> Date: January 5, 2007 11:06:31 AM EST To: dave@farber.net Subject: Using Venice Project? Better get yourself a non-capping ISP...
I am one of Venice' beta testers. Works like a charm, admittedly with a 20/1 Mbs ADSL2+ connection and a unlimited use ISP.
Even at sub-DVD quality the data use is staggering...
Venice Project would break many users' ISP conditions http://www.out-law.com/page-7604 OUT-LAW News, 03/01/2007
Internet television system The Venice Project could break users' monthly internet bandwith limits in hours, according to the team behind it.
It downloads 320 megabytes (MB) per hour from users' computers, meaning that users could reach their monthly download limits in hours and that it could be unusable for bandwidth-capped users.
The Venice Project is the new system being developed by Janus Friis and Niklas Zennström, the Scandinavian entrepreneurs behind the revolutionary services Kazaa and Skype. It is currently being used by 6,000 beta testers and is due to be launched next year.
The data transfer rate is revealed in the documentation sent to beta testers and the instructions make it very clear what the bandwidth requirements are so that users are not caught out.
Under a banner saying 'Important notice for users with limits on their internet usage', the document says: "The Venice Project is a streaming video application, and so uses a relatively high amount of bandwidth per hour. One hour of viewing is 320MB downloaded and 105 Megabytes uploaded, which means that it will exhaust a 1 Gigabyte cap in 10 hours. Also, the application continues to run in the background after you close the main window."
"For this reason, if you pay for your bandwidth usage per megabyte or have your usage capped by your ISP, you should be careful to always exit the Venice Project client completely when you are finished watching it," says the document
Many ISPs offer broadband connections which are unlimited to use by time, but have limits on the amount of data that can be transferred over the connection each month. Though limits are 'advisory' and not strict, users who regularly far exceed the limits break the terms of their deals.
BT's most basic broadband package BT Total Broadband Package 1, for example, has a 2GB monthly 'usage guideline'. This would be reached after 20 hours of viewing.
The software is also likely to transfer data even when not being used. The Venice system is going to run on a peer-to-peer (P2P) network, which means that users host and send the programmes to other users in an automated system.
OUT-LAW has seen screenshots from the system and talked to one of the testers of it, who reports very favourably on its use. "This is going to be the one. I've used some of the other software out there and it's fine, but my dad could use this, they've just got it right," he said. "It looks great, you fire it up and in two minutes you're live, you're watching television."
The source said that claims being made for the system being "near high definition" in terms of picture quality are wide of the mark. "It's not high definition. It's the same as normal television," he said.
-- "Private where private belongs, public where it's needed, and an admission that circumstances alter cases." Robert A. Heinlein, 1969
-- Thomas Leavitt - thomas@thomasleavitt.org - 831-295-3917 (cell)
*** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA ***
<thomas.vcf>
participants (11)
-
Alexander Harrowell -
Colm MacCarthaigh -
Frank Bulk -
Gian Constantine -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Marshall Eubanks -
Robert Boyle -
Roland Dobbins -
Thomas Leavitt -
Travis H. -
Trent Lloyd