Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time. We're an eyeball network plus some really large customers. Anyone else seeing something different? We're now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see something change by now. scott
Our traffic is normally about 1/3 during the day of what it is at night (6pm-midnight). Since Monday the only change I've seen is that traffic goes to about 1/2 peak around 10am and stays there until about 6pm. So no capacity concerns.... We have been fielding a ridiculous amount of "my VPN doesn't work, it's your problem" support calls though =\ I feel for any corporate IT guy right now.
Some VPN issues reported at my organisation as well Mygroup has some members who cant join, so everyone else goes out, make groups on other platforms, which I hope scale. Le 19/03/2020 à 08:18, Matt Hoppes a écrit :
Our traffic is normally about 1/3 during the day of what it is at night (6pm-midnight).
Since Monday the only change I've seen is that traffic goes to about 1/2 peak around 10am and stays there until about 6pm.
So no capacity concerns....
We have been fielding a ridiculous amount of "my VPN doesn't work, it's your problem" support calls though =\
I feel for any corporate IT guy right now.
On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time. We're an eyeball network plus some really large customers.
Anyone else seeing something different? We're now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see something change by now.
South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on semi-lockdown from about Sunday. We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th. Mark.
I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this pushed harder in the coming weeks. In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the internet during the battle against the virus propagation." https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html - Mike Bolitho On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time. We're an eyeball network plus some really large customers.
Anyone else seeing something different? We're now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see something change by now.
South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on semi-lockdown from about Sunday.
We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.
Mark.
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two. On 3/19/20 12:05 PM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this pushed harder in the coming weeks.
In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
- Mike Bolitho
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu <mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.mu>> wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote: > > > We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external > BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large > increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time. > We're an eyeball network plus some really large > customers. > > Anyone else seeing something different? We're > now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see > something change by now.
South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on semi-lockdown from about Sunday.
We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.
Mark.
A few more Netflix cache boxes might be nice. We've got one only 1 hop away and I think we're keeping it busy. On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:11 AM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two.
On 3/19/20 12:05 PM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this pushed harder in the coming weeks.
In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
- Mike Bolitho
-- Jeff Shultz -- Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!! <https://www.facebook.com/SCTCWEB/> <https://www.instagram.com/sctc_503/> <https://www.yelp.com/biz/sctc-stayton-3> <https://www.youtube.com/c/sctcvideos> _**** This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. ****_
On 19/Mar/20 18:49, Jeff Shultz wrote:
A few more Netflix cache boxes might be nice. We've got one only 1 hop away and I think we're keeping it busy.
Consumers follow what they perceive as value. They gave up on Command & Control tendencies of old. Mark.
On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two.
Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 1080p and 720p. If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else? Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now? Mark.
On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two. Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 1080p and 720p.
If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
Mark.
Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision made out of fear or panic.
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two. Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 1080p and 720p.
If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
Mark.
Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision made out of fear or panic.
Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious compared to others. On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From: *"Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two. Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 1080p and 720p.
If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
Mark.
Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision made out of fear or panic.
It's one of those most important things that matters. The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other. The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds. Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on the Internet. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306 Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious compared to others. On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two. Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 1080p and 720p.
If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
Mark.
Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision made out of fear or panic.
It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a dangerous precedent. If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after this crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and adding on "well it's an emergency to me!". Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that
aren't as adaptable.
And how is that Netflix's responsibility? They have already taken action to ramp down bitrates when they detect congestion. Why should other applications be able to say piss off, I don't want to? Didn't we just have a 10 year net neutrality argument that we're not supposed to want to treat the bits differently? On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
It's one of those most important things that matters.
The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other.
The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds.
Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on the Internet.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------ *From: *"Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious compared to others.
On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------ *From: *"Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> <blake@ispn.net> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two. Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 1080p and 720p.
If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
Mark.
Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision made out of fear or panic.
If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after this crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and adding on "well it's an emergency to me!" Well, that’s a silly argument. Do you think people can’t tell the difference between a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic and somebody who’s having a “personal emergency”? -mel On Mar 20, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote: It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a dangerous precedent. If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after this crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and adding on "well it's an emergency to me!". Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable. And how is that Netflix's responsibility? They have already taken action to ramp down bitrates when they detect congestion. Why should other applications be able to say piss off, I don't want to? Didn't we just have a 10 year net neutrality argument that we're not supposed to want to treat the bits differently? On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net<mailto:nanog@ics-il.net>> wrote: It's one of those most important things that matters. The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other. The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds. Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on the Internet. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306 Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ________________________________ From: "Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net<mailto:blake@ispn.net>> To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious compared to others. On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ________________________________ From: "Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net><mailto:blake@ispn.net> To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two. Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 1080p and 720p.
If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
Mark.
Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision made out of fear or panic.
I think people can tell the difference just fine. But get lawyers involved on what the word 'emergency' means, then watch the fun. On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:47 AM Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after this crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and adding on "well it's an emergency to me!"
Well, that’s a silly argument. Do you think people can’t tell the difference between a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic and somebody who’s having a “personal emergency”?
-mel
On Mar 20, 2020, at 7:43 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a dangerous precedent.
If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after this crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and adding on "well it's an emergency to me!".
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that
aren't as adaptable.
And how is that Netflix's responsibility? They have already taken action to ramp down bitrates when they detect congestion. Why should other applications be able to say piss off, I don't want to? Didn't we just have a 10 year net neutrality argument that we're not supposed to want to treat the bits differently?
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
It's one of those most important things that matters.
The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other.
The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds.
Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on the Internet.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------ *From: *"Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious compared to others.
On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------ *From: *"Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> <blake@ispn.net> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two. Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 1080p and 720p.
If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
Mark.
Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision made out of fear or panic.
Because they're trying to be a responsible Internet citizen instead of just telling everyone else to bugger off. Perhaps if more entities tried to be responsible instead of entitled, the Internet wouldn't be as bad as it is? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Beecher" <beecher@beecher.cc> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net>, "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:41:49 AM Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a dangerous precedent. If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after this crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and adding on "well it's an emergency to me!". Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable. And how is that Netflix's responsibility? They have already taken action to ramp down bitrates when they detect congestion. Why should other applications be able to say piss off, I don't want to? Didn't we just have a 10 year net neutrality argument that we're not supposed to want to treat the bits differently? On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: <blockquote> It's one of those most important things that matters. The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other. The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds. Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on the Internet. https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306 Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Blake Hudson" < blake@ispn.net > To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious compared to others. On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: <blockquote> Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two. Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 1080p and 720p.
If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
Mark.
Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision made out of fear or panic. </blockquote> </blockquote>
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:00:15AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
Because they're trying to be a responsible Internet citizen instead of just telling everyone else to bugger off.
Perhaps if more entities tried to be responsible instead of entitled, the Internet wouldn't be as bad as it is?
+100. In all the decades that I've been here (on the 'nets), the saddest change I've seen is the lack of responsibility on the part of people who have, by virtue of their positions, been given incredible power. This is the time for those people to step up and (try to) do the right thing. None of us know what's going to be needed. How could we? We could guess, and we *are* guessing, but we don't really know because we're sailing off the edge of the map now. In those circumstances, the virtue of frugality -- a sensible thing at any time -- now becomes a necessity. Every single one of us should be doing whatever we can to prepare for the unknown, and conserving resources is one part of that. "Everything we do before a pandemic will seem alarmist. Everything we do after will seem inadequate." --- Michael Leavitt, former HHS Secretary As I write this, doctors and nurses are working without PPE, risking their own wellbeing to try to save patients. We're not being asked to do anything like that. Hopefully we still have enough left to rise to the comparatively minor challenge in front of us. ---rsk
On 20/Mar/20 19:38, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
+100.
In all the decades that I've been here (on the 'nets), the saddest change I've seen is the lack of responsibility on the part of people who have, by virtue of their positions, been given incredible power. This is the time for those people to step up and (try to) do the right thing.
None of us know what's going to be needed. How could we? We could guess, and we *are* guessing, but we don't really know because we're sailing off the edge of the map now.
In those circumstances, the virtue of frugality -- a sensible thing at any time -- now becomes a necessity. Every single one of us should be doing whatever we can to prepare for the unknown, and conserving resources is one part of that.
"Everything we do before a pandemic will seem alarmist. Everything we do after will seem inadequate." --- Michael Leavitt, former HHS Secretary
As I write this, doctors and nurses are working without PPE, risking their own wellbeing to try to save patients. We're not being asked to do anything like that. Hopefully we still have enough left to rise to the comparatively minor challenge in front of us.
All I'm saying is at the moment, there is no empirical information to suggest that Netflix will break what's left of the Internet. Nor is there any empirical information suggesting that singling them out will help keep it going. If we go down this path, who's to say which service provider will or won't be "targeted" next at the whim of some command & control policy maker? Is it a rabbit hole whose top-soil we want to uncover? If/when the network starts to take a hit, network operators will respond. But if there is any operator on this list who is willing to raise their hands and say, "Netflix is breaking my network", uncongested, free-flowing beer on me when we all come out from the bunkers. Mark.
On Friday, 20 March, 2020 20:43, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
If we go down this path, who's to say which service provider will or won't be "targeted" next at the whim of some command & control policy maker? Is it a rabbit hole whose top-soil we want to uncover?
Perhaps the "advertizing" and "JavaScript" should be banned from websites first. That would have more effect than fiddling with streaming media services. -- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
Le 21/03/2020 à 03:42, Mark Tinka a écrit :
On 20/Mar/20 19:38, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
+100.
In all the decades that I've been here (on the 'nets), the saddest change I've seen is the lack of responsibility on the part of people who have, by virtue of their positions, been given incredible power. This is the time for those people to step up and (try to) do the right thing.
None of us know what's going to be needed. How could we? We could guess, and we *are* guessing, but we don't really know because we're sailing off the edge of the map now.
In those circumstances, the virtue of frugality -- a sensible thing at any time -- now becomes a necessity. Every single one of us should be doing whatever we can to prepare for the unknown, and conserving resources is one part of that.
"Everything we do before a pandemic will seem alarmist. Everything we do after will seem inadequate." --- Michael Leavitt, former HHS Secretary
As I write this, doctors and nurses are working without PPE, risking their own wellbeing to try to save patients. We're not being asked to do anything like that. Hopefully we still have enough left to rise to the comparatively minor challenge in front of us. All I'm saying is at the moment, there is no empirical information to suggest that Netflix will break what's left of the Internet. Nor is there any empirical information suggesting that singling them out will help keep it going.
I tend to agree - I dont think there is any capacity problem in the core network or server platforms, including netflix. I do not see it for my part as of now. I am an end user, not a Network sysadmin. I heard about EU measures to attenuate such a problem tha tmight arrive - I think it is mis-informed. I also heard EC (European COmmission) looking to push all efforts in robotics, how could robotics help this, several ideas like drones, or the open source respiratory device, or why not sending a robot do shopping for me. I think these look far fetched but are promissing. Alex, LF/HF 2 (means low stress)
If we go down this path, who's to say which service provider will or won't be "targeted" next at the whim of some command & control policy maker? Is it a rabbit hole whose top-soil we want to uncover?
If/when the network starts to take a hit, network operators will respond. But if there is any operator on this list who is willing to raise their hands and say, "Netflix is breaking my network", uncongested, free-flowing beer on me when we all come out from the bunkers.
Mark.
On 21/Mar/20 14:43, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
I tend to agree - I dont think there is any capacity problem in the core network or server platforms, including netflix. I do not see it for my part as of now. I am an end user, not a Network sysadmin.
I heard about EU measures to attenuate such a problem tha tmight arrive - I think it is mis-informed.
I also heard EC (European COmmission) looking to push all efforts in robotics, how could robotics help this, several ideas like drones, or the open source respiratory device, or why not sending a robot do shopping for me. I think these look far fetched but are promissing.
Business models were always changing. What the Coronavirus has done is amplify and accelerate those transitions. The thing is even after the Coronavirus pandemic is solved, businesses are going to have to adapt to new operating models in this new digital economy. Unfortunately, many are going to assume that it was only necessary for the period of the pandemic, and will want to revert to their traditional ways of doing things prior to the outbreak once all the dust settles. I empathize with those businesses. Mark.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 04:42:51AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
All I'm saying is at the moment, there is no empirical information to suggest that Netflix will break what's left of the Internet. Nor is there any empirical information suggesting that singling them out will help keep it going.
My remarks weren't about Netflix or any other particular service. (FWIW, I agree with you on both quoted points about the lack of evidence. Maybe it'll arrive. Maybe it won't.) I was trying to speak, perhaps unsuccessfully, in broader terms about trying to best position ourselves for challenges that we may not see coming despite the aggregated millenia of expertise here. I think at this particular point in time we need to be ready for anything, for a very nebulous and possibly quite surprising value of "anything". ---rsk
On 21/Mar/20 23:37, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
My remarks weren't about Netflix or any other particular service. (FWIW, I agree with you on both quoted points about the lack of evidence. Maybe it'll arrive. Maybe it won't.)
I was trying to speak, perhaps unsuccessfully, in broader terms about trying to best position ourselves for challenges that we may not see coming despite the aggregated millenia of expertise here. I think at this particular point in time we need to be ready for anything, for a very nebulous and possibly quite surprising value of "anything".
I would, generally, file that under "Why we get up everyday" :-). The folk over in IT are probably dealing with plenty of noise about VPN's and cybersecurity things as folk work more from home than usual. If backbones begin to flutter and last miles start to screech, I'm certain this group will be woken from its slumber. Mark.
On 20/Mar/20 17:00, Mike Hammett wrote:
Perhaps if more entities tried to be responsible instead of entitled, the Internet wouldn't be as bad as it is?
I half agree with your last sentence. More entities don't need to be entitled (which I don't think Netflix are, to be clear), but they need to listen to customers and offer them value (not product). Customers have never been more in the driver's seat in this new economy than ever before. They will quickly show you how irrelevant you are to them. Whatever move(s) Netflix or the command & control policy people make here, customers will respond accordingly. Mark.
"It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a dangerous precedent."
Can we stop with this talk... around everything? We're literally living through an unprecedented event right now. My 86 year old grandmother said she's never seen anything like this in the US. My friends 94 year old grandmother in Italy said she hasn't seen this since WWII. Nobody is going to say "Well we did this during a global pandemic so we can now do it because we feel like it". People will laugh them out of the room. I live in Phoenix, the mayor shut down bars and restaurants (carryout only) in order to help stop us from becoming Italy. One of our city councilmen was saying the same thing: "This is martial law and sets bad precedent! We must open everything up!" Of course, they then held a closed to the public meeting because city council can't be exposed. The point is, the mayor isn't going to do the same thing in six months on a whim because traffic on the freeway is bad. Thankfully calmer heads prevailed and the rest of the council told him to pound sand, at least for now. Something that keeps happening on this mailing list over the last few weeks is this tendency to try to take the "Moral high ground". And from way up there people are looking at the whole topic from an idealistic point of view like we live in some Network Operators Utopia with perfect conditions where money doesn't exist and we can do whatever we want because there is no upper management. We should be having a practical conversation that sits within the confines of reality. We don't have perfect networks built. We don't have unlimited resources. We are facing a global pandemic. Money is tight. In principle, I agree with what you guys are saying. But in reality, we're going to have to bend our convictions in order to protect populations from COVID-19. You will be changing your tune when your mother is sick and can't get the care she needs because the system is overwhelmed because we (communities, not just network operators) didn't do what was necessary because of some idealistic hard line people drew in the sand. - Mike Bolitho On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 7:44 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a dangerous precedent.
If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after this crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and adding on "well it's an emergency to me!".
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that
aren't as adaptable.
And how is that Netflix's responsibility? They have already taken action to ramp down bitrates when they detect congestion. Why should other applications be able to say piss off, I don't want to? Didn't we just have a 10 year net neutrality argument that we're not supposed to want to treat the bits differently?
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
It's one of those most important things that matters.
The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other.
The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds.
Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on the Internet.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------ *From: *"Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious compared to others.
On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------ *From: *"Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> <blake@ispn.net> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two. Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 1080p and 720p.
If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
Mark.
Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision made out of fear or panic.
Have you heard of the Patriot Act? Tom is correct that this does set a precedent of suppressing freedom of speech (I realize this is not a right in the EU like it is in US). "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." On 3/20/2020 10:10 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
"It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a dangerous precedent."
Can we stop with this talk... around everything? We're literally living through an unprecedented event right now. My 86 year old grandmother said she's never seen anything like this in the US. My friends 94 year old grandmother in Italy said she hasn't seen this since WWII. Nobody is going to say "Well we did this during a global pandemic so we can now do it because we feel like it". People will laugh them out of the room. I live in Phoenix, the mayor shut down bars and restaurants (carryout only) in order to help stop us from becoming Italy. One of our city councilmen was saying the same thing: "This is martial law and sets bad precedent! We must open everything up!" Of course, they then held a closed to the public meeting because city council can't be exposed. The point is, the mayor isn't going to do the same thing in six months on a whim because traffic on the freeway is bad. Thankfully calmer heads prevailed and the rest of the council told him to pound sand, at least for now.
Something that keeps happening on this mailing list over the last few weeks is this tendency to try to take the "Moral high ground". And from way up there people are looking at the whole topic from an idealistic point of view like we live in some Network Operators Utopia with perfect conditions where money doesn't exist and we can do whatever we want because there is no upper management. We should be having a practical conversation that sits within the confines of reality. We don't have perfect networks built. We don't have unlimited resources. We are facing a global pandemic. Money is tight. In principle, I agree with what you guys are saying. But in reality, we're going to have to bend our convictions in order to protect populations from COVID-19. You will be changing your tune when your mother is sick and can't get the care she needs because the system is overwhelmed because we (communities, not just network operators) didn't do what was necessary because of some idealistic hard line people drew in the sand.
- Mike Bolitho
You will be changing your tune when your mother is sick and can't get the care she needs because the system is overwhelmed because we (communities, not just network operators) didn't do what was necessary because of some idealistic hard line people drew in the sand.
The medical system is going to be run over by lack of trained professionals / beds / equipment long before it is unable to provide care because of transient internet congestion. I know you're under a lot of stress Mike, and I wish you all the best getting through these current events. On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:09 AM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:
"It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a
dangerous precedent."
Can we stop with this talk... around everything? We're literally living through an unprecedented event right now. My 86 year old grandmother said she's never seen anything like this in the US. My friends 94 year old grandmother in Italy said she hasn't seen this since WWII. Nobody is going to say "Well we did this during a global pandemic so we can now do it because we feel like it". People will laugh them out of the room. I live in Phoenix, the mayor shut down bars and restaurants (carryout only) in order to help stop us from becoming Italy. One of our city councilmen was saying the same thing: "This is martial law and sets bad precedent! We must open everything up!" Of course, they then held a closed to the public meeting because city council can't be exposed. The point is, the mayor isn't going to do the same thing in six months on a whim because traffic on the freeway is bad. Thankfully calmer heads prevailed and the rest of the council told him to pound sand, at least for now.
Something that keeps happening on this mailing list over the last few weeks is this tendency to try to take the "Moral high ground". And from way up there people are looking at the whole topic from an idealistic point of view like we live in some Network Operators Utopia with perfect conditions where money doesn't exist and we can do whatever we want because there is no upper management. We should be having a practical conversation that sits within the confines of reality. We don't have perfect networks built. We don't have unlimited resources. We are facing a global pandemic. Money is tight. In principle, I agree with what you guys are saying. But in reality, we're going to have to bend our convictions in order to protect populations from COVID-19. You will be changing your tune when your mother is sick and can't get the care she needs because the system is overwhelmed because we (communities, not just network operators) didn't do what was necessary because of some idealistic hard line people drew in the sand.
- Mike Bolitho
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 7:44 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
It is something that matters, because it has the potential to set a dangerous precedent.
If you say "$Service should reduce their bit rates because this is an emergency!" , I guarantee that exact same argument will be made well after this crisis has passed with a different definition of "emergency", and adding on "well it's an emergency to me!".
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services
that aren't as adaptable.
And how is that Netflix's responsibility? They have already taken action to ramp down bitrates when they detect congestion. Why should other applications be able to say piss off, I don't want to? Didn't we just have a 10 year net neutrality argument that we're not supposed to want to treat the bits differently?
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
It's one of those most important things that matters.
The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other.
The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds.
Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on the Internet.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------ *From: *"Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious compared to others.
On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------ *From: *"Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> <blake@ispn.net> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two. Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, 1080p and 720p.
If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers
to
use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else?
Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now?
Mark.
Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision made out of fear or panic.
Citing 25M may be a bit of a stretch since A) 4k is reserved for ISPs with a local cache (last time I checked), B) many (most?) Netflix customers are not on 4k equipment, C) 4k requires a premium subscription to Netflix at additional cost that not all customers have, D) the customer must have ~25M or above service and not be experiencing congestion on the path between the local Netflix cache and the customer's equipment, and E) if even one of the above is not true the Netflix user will typically receive a 3-5Mbps stream, depending on the device and connection performance. On the networks I monitor, forcing a ~3Mbps or lower Netflix stream would have the effect of lowing the peak rate in the high demand hour, wasting available equipment and capacity. It would not have the effect of improving VPN, VoIP, or video conferencing performance during the hours that those applications are typically used and I would wager that it would not have an appreciable effect on those applications even during peak usage periods. If there were a WiFi or similar issue within a specific household, the best way to address that is within the household (either turning off unneeded devices, moving high demand devices closer to the AP or wiring them, or upgrading to current WiFi technology). --Blake On 3/20/2020 9:15 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
It's one of those most important things that matters.
The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other.
The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds.
Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on the Internet.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From: *"Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 9:01:18 AM *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
Yes, but does that matter? If there's extra capacity on the link, Netflix runs at full rate. If there is not extra capacity Netflix rates down to prevent congestion. While streaming video (including Netflix) uses a lot of bandwidth, I don't see Netflix causing congestion. It gets a bad wrap, and I think that's unfair because Netflix is actually really efficient and really conscientious compared to others.
On 3/20/2020 8:52 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL><https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix><https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From: *"Blake Hudson" <blake@ispn.net> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, March 20, 2020 8:32:45 AM *Subject: *Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks
On 3/19/2020 12:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > On 19/Mar/20 18:07, Matt Hoppes wrote: >> Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the >> next month or two. > Well, the article claims "Drop stream quality from HD". That means 4K, > 1080p and 720p. > > If you have an OCA on your network, how does this encourage consumers to > use the "extra bandwidth" for anything else? > > Are we assuming we know how consumers want to spend their time now? > > Mark.
Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision made out of fear or panic.
On 20/Mar/20 16:15, Mike Hammett wrote:
It's one of those most important things that matters.
The end user likely won't notice the difference between 4k and 720p. They also aren't likely to notice the transition from one to the other.
The person on the VPN, VoIP call, video conference, video game, etc. will very much notice the congested link, even if it's only a few seconds.
Yes, Netflix video is very efficient, if not the most efficient. They're also one of if not the largest slingers of bits on the Internet. Small changes in usage of such a huge player totally eclipse most other usages on the Internet.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc.
Considering that the telecoms sector is one of the most traveled group of professional people around the world, on a 12-month basis, that would mean all the meetings we hold, each week, somewhere in the world, racking up air miles galore, was a total waste of time if it's all reduced to this. Don't let your Finance departments read this thread - they'll just cut your travel budgets :-). Mark.
* Mike Hammett:
Netflix recommends 25 megs for Ultra HD, while only 5 megs for HD. That's a 5x difference in something people likely won't notice and would make a big difference on the additional VPN, VoIP, video conferencing, etc.
4K isn't supported by all devices and plans. I'm not sure what kind of savings you can actually realize there. It could be that 4K content isn't worth caching near the edge. Then ditching 4K could still have a significant effect despite relatively low usage by subscribers. Similarly anything that reduces content diversity (like serving only one category of 1080p streams). Reportedly, the issue is backhaul capacity for some CDN nodes in Europe, and not capacity from the local cache to the subscriber, but I do not have any direct knowledge of that. Relaxing copyright and patent restrictions might also help, at least in the medium term.
On 21/Mar/20 13:28, Florian Weimer wrote:
4K isn't supported by all devices and plans. I'm not sure what kind of savings you can actually realize there. It could be that 4K content isn't worth caching near the edge. Then ditching 4K could still have a significant effect despite relatively low usage by subscribers. Similarly anything that reduces content diversity (like serving only one category of 1080p streams).
In South Africa, the majority of the population does not own 4K-capable TV's. Also, most people do not have access to FTTH services. And for many that do, having a 25Mbps slot lying around for 4K Netflix is even less common. That said, a recent survey in the country indicated that the majority of Netflix subscribers that were polled subscribed to the 4K package. It wasn't clear whether what they actually wanted as 4K capability or the ability to support 4 simultaneous streams. Personally, I suspect the latter.
Reportedly, the issue is backhaul capacity for some CDN nodes in Europe, and not capacity from the local cache to the subscriber, but I do not have any direct knowledge of that.
It could go either way, but the reason the cache-fill theory is one I do not necessarily think will create a bottleneck is because Netflix push content to OCA's or public clusters during off-peak times. Pressure is more likely to be placed on the edge and the last mile, if that; but that comes back to why the customers want to spend their own money, and not having Command & Control tell them how, or why. Mark.
On Friday, 20 March, 2020 07:52, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable.
Can you explain why you think that is Netflix problem? I should think that it is a problem being experienced by persons who deliberately chose to accept the risk that Internet congestion may be a problem for the path upon which they have deliberately chosen to embark. That Risk might now come to fruition and those persons should be activating their pre-planned mitigation. If their pre-planned mitigation was "well, Netflix can shut down", then they had (hopefully) defective mitigation planning. Perhaps in the future they will do a better job of assessing Risk and mitigating that Risk. -- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
I have neither the time, nor the inclination to do so for people that are not likely to be persuaded to change their position. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com> To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 10:35:57 AM Subject: RE: COVID-19 vs. our Networks On Friday, 20 March, 2020 07:52, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable.
Can you explain why you think that is Netflix problem? I should think that it is a problem being experienced by persons who deliberately chose to accept the risk that Internet congestion may be a problem for the path upon which they have deliberately chosen to embark. That Risk might now come to fruition and those persons should be activating their pre-planned mitigation. If their pre-planned mitigation was "well, Netflix can shut down", then they had (hopefully) defective mitigation planning. Perhaps in the future they will do a better job of assessing Risk and mitigating that Risk. -- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
On 20/Mar/20 15:52, Mike Hammett wrote:
Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable.
I think that's case specific on the type of network you have built, and whether your feed your customers Netflix content with on on-site OCA or via an exchange point or transit link. Mark.
Unless the IX or OCA feed goes to the DSLAM, node, tower... no. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:22:45 PM Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. our Networks On 20/Mar/20 15:52, Mike Hammett wrote: Some of the pipes Netflix goes through is also used by other services that aren't as adaptable. I think that's case specific on the type of network you have built, and whether your feed your customers Netflix content with on on-site OCA or via an exchange point or transit link. Mark.
On 20/Mar/20 15:32, Blake Hudson wrote:
Across several eyeball networks I'm not seeing any noticeable increase in peak (95%) demand between now and January. Since Netflix automatically scales down data rates in the event of congestion, the only thing I foresee forcing Netflix to reduce data rates [ahead of any congestion] would accomplish is causing excess link capacity to go unused (wasted). This sounds like a policy decision made without a technical argument... e.g. not a data driven decision, but a decision made out of fear or panic.
Yep - the command & control culture. Mark.
On Thursday, 19 March, 2020 10:07, Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two.
As long as NetFlix lowers their prices proportionately with their reduced level of service. For example, if NetFlix decides they will only provide "half-quality" service then they should only charge half price. -- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
I don’t think Netflix has any quality guarantees. So you’re SOL if you think there is some kind of legal recourse. I’d argue that 50% pay for 50% quality is illogical anyway. HD is 25% the quality of 4K. Yet you get virtually all of the value of the content, with only a sight reduction in detail. Personally, I don’t think now is the time to quibble about ethereal costs. We all need to roll up our sleeves, put our big boy pants on, and get the planet through this crisis. -mel
On Mar 19, 2020, at 10:02 PM, Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 19 March, 2020 10:07, Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two.
As long as NetFlix lowers their prices proportionately with their reduced level of service. For example, if NetFlix decides they will only provide "half-quality" service then they should only charge half price.
-- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
On 20/Mar/20 09:19, Mel Beckman wrote:
I don’t think Netflix has any quality guarantees. So you’re SOL if you think there is some kind of legal recourse. I’d argue that 50% pay for 50% quality is illogical anyway. HD is 25% the quality of 4K. Yet you get virtually all of the value of the content, with only a sight reduction in detail.
Personally, I don’t think now is the time to quibble about ethereal costs. We all need to roll up our sleeves, put our big boy pants on, and get the planet through this crisis.
As I said on another list yesterday: Overall, we've spent 3 decades building this global Internet. Time to see if the child can stand on its own two webbed feet :-). Mark.
Why in the world would they do that? Maybe waive the fees for the higher services, but you're not entitled to anything more than that. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com> To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 12:02:08 AM Subject: RE: COVID-19 vs. our Networks On Thursday, 19 March, 2020 10:07, Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Agreed... 720 or 1080 Netflix will work just as fine as 4K for the next month or two.
As long as NetFlix lowers their prices proportionately with their reduced level of service. For example, if NetFlix decides they will only provide "half-quality" service then they should only charge half price. -- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
On 20/Mar/20 15:51, Mike Hammett wrote:
Why in the world would they do that?
Maybe waive the fees for the higher services, but you're not entitled to anything more than that.
Users will pay for value. If users don't see value, they will respond accordingly. Mark.
EU regulations with such things are vastly different than in the US. On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:
I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this pushed harder in the coming weeks.
In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
- Mike Bolitho
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time. We're an eyeball network plus some really large customers.
Anyone else seeing something different? We're now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see something change by now.
South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on semi-lockdown from about Sunday.
We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.
Mark.
I've said it over and over again, we have TSP and it could easily be used to enforce priority to emergency preparedness customers. It's built into the language. - Mike Bolitho On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:52 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
EU regulations with such things are vastly different than in the US.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:
I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this pushed harder in the coming weeks.
In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
- Mike Bolitho
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time. We're an eyeball network plus some really large customers.
Anyone else seeing something different? We're now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see something change by now.
South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on semi-lockdown from about Sunday.
We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.
Mark.
Yes, you have said that. I still believe you are incorrect. TSP allows priority for turnup of new capacity , and priority restoration for capacity. There is nothing in the regulations that I can find that would allow TSP to be used to rectify general internet congestion issues. On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:53 PM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:
I've said it over and over again, we have TSP and it could easily be used to enforce priority to emergency preparedness customers. It's built into the language.
- Mike Bolitho
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:52 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
EU regulations with such things are vastly different than in the US.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:
I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this pushed harder in the coming weeks.
In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
- Mike Bolitho
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time. We're an eyeball network plus some really large customers.
Anyone else seeing something different? We're now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see something change by now.
South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on semi-lockdown from about Sunday.
We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.
Mark.
*Restoration:* *The repair or returning to service of one or more telecommunications services that have experienced a service outage or are unusable for any reason, including a damaged or impaired telecommunications facility. Such repair or returning to service may be done by patching, rerouting, substitution of component parts or pathways, and other means, as determined necessary by a service vendor.* https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OEC%20TSP%20Operations... My understanding, and what we did while I worked for a Tier I ISP, was that even for degraded circuits we had to do everything in our power to restore to full operations. If capacity is an issue and causes TSP coded DIA circuits to be unusable then that falls under the "any reason" clause of that line. - Mike Bolitho On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:05 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Yes, you have said that. I still believe you are incorrect.
TSP allows priority for turnup of new capacity , and priority restoration for capacity. There is nothing in the regulations that I can find that would allow TSP to be used to rectify general internet congestion issues.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:53 PM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:
I've said it over and over again, we have TSP and it could easily be used to enforce priority to emergency preparedness customers. It's built into the language.
- Mike Bolitho
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:52 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
EU regulations with such things are vastly different than in the US.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:
I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this pushed harder in the coming weeks.
In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
- Mike Bolitho
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote:
We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time. We're an eyeball network plus some really large customers.
Anyone else seeing something different? We're now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see something change by now.
South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on semi-lockdown from about Sunday.
We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.
Mark.
I don’t agree with your reading of this that applies downstream congestion issues to your TSP codes circuit. But I will not continue to debate the point. On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 13:22 Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:
*Restoration:*
*The repair or returning to service of one or more telecommunications services that have experienced a service outage or are unusable for any reason, including a damaged or impaired telecommunications facility. Such repair or returning to service may be done by patching, rerouting, substitution of component parts or pathways, and other means, as determined necessary by a service vendor.*
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OEC%20TSP%20Operations...
My understanding, and what we did while I worked for a Tier I ISP, was that even for degraded circuits we had to do everything in our power to restore to full operations. If capacity is an issue and causes TSP coded DIA circuits to be unusable then that falls under the "any reason" clause of that line.
- Mike Bolitho
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:05 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
Yes, you have said that. I still believe you are incorrect.
TSP allows priority for turnup of new capacity , and priority restoration for capacity. There is nothing in the regulations that I can find that would allow TSP to be used to rectify general internet congestion issues.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:53 PM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:
I've said it over and over again, we have TSP and it could easily be used to enforce priority to emergency preparedness customers. It's built into the language.
- Mike Bolitho
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:52 AM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
EU regulations with such things are vastly different than in the US.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:
I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this pushed harder in the coming weeks.
In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
- Mike Bolitho
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 5:03 AM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 19/Mar/20 04:35, Scott Weeks wrote: > > > We do about 70-80Gbps at peak over the external > BGP links we have and I am not seeing a large > increase nor am I seeing it spread out over time. > We're an eyeball network plus some really large > customers. > > Anyone else seeing something different? We're > now into the 3rd day, so I thought I'd see > something change by now.
South Africa and a few other African countries put countries on semi-lockdown from about Sunday.
We've seen a 15% increase in peak traffic on our network since the 17th.
Mark.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:27 AM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:
*Restoration:*
*The repair or returning to service of one or more telecommunications services that have experienced a service outage or are unusable for any reason, including a damaged or impaired telecommunications facility. Such repair or returning to service may be done by patching, rerouting, substitution of component parts or pathways, and other means, as determined necessary by a service vendor.*
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OEC%20TSP%20Operations...
My understanding, and what we did while I worked for a Tier I ISP, was that even for degraded circuits we had to do everything in our power to restore to full operations. If capacity is an issue and causes TSP coded DIA circuits to be unusable then that falls under the "any reason" clause of that line.
- Mike Bolitho
If you're going to bang that drum, the place you're going to get the most buck-for-your-bang is using it to force better cooperation between ISPs. It appears that baking cakes was not sufficient to get recalcitrant players to work together. https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031195041 Perhaps a global pandemic may be sufficient to have government begin to *compel* networks to interconnect at locations at which they share common peering infrastructure? If you're worried about congestion and performance, that would be the place to start pushing. Matt staying safely at home away from the flame-fest that may ensue from this. ^_^;
Interesting thought, Matt. I've emailed both of my Senators to inform them of this issue and its potential impact on the resiliency of the internet (the most infamous culprit being an operator of root DNS servers, to name a specific example). I would encourage every NANOG member who cares about this issue to do the same. It may be a shot in the dark, but it's a start I guess... -Matt On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 4:15 PM Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:27 AM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:
*Restoration:*
*The repair or returning to service of one or more telecommunications services that have experienced a service outage or are unusable for any reason, including a damaged or impaired telecommunications facility. Such repair or returning to service may be done by patching, rerouting, substitution of component parts or pathways, and other means, as determined necessary by a service vendor.*
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OEC%20TSP%20Operations...
My understanding, and what we did while I worked for a Tier I ISP, was that even for degraded circuits we had to do everything in our power to restore to full operations. If capacity is an issue and causes TSP coded DIA circuits to be unusable then that falls under the "any reason" clause of that line.
- Mike Bolitho
If you're going to bang that drum, the place you're going to get the most buck-for-your-bang is using it to force better cooperation between ISPs.
It appears that baking cakes was not sufficient to get recalcitrant players to work together.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031195041
Perhaps a global pandemic may be sufficient to have government begin to *compel* networks to interconnect at locations at which they share common peering infrastructure?
If you're worried about congestion and performance, that would be the place to start pushing.
Matt staying safely at home away from the flame-fest that may ensue from this. ^_^;
-- Matt Erculiani ERCUL-ARIN
In Canada the CRTC really needs to get on Canadian ISPs about peering very liberally at IXs in each province. I know of one major institution right now that would have a major work from home issue resolved if one big ISP would peer with one big tier 1 in the IX they are both located at in the same province. Instead traffic needs to flow across the country or to the USA to get back to the same city. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Matthew Petach Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 4:15 PM To: Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: COVID-19 vs. peering wars CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Civeo. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:27 AM Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com<mailto:mikebolitho@gmail.com>> wrote: Restoration: The repair or returning to service of one or more telecommunications services that have experienced a service outage or are unusable for any reason, including a damaged or impaired telecommunications facility. Such repair or returning to service may be done by patching, rerouting, substitution of component parts or pathways, and other means, as determined necessary by a service vendor. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OEC%20TSP%20Operations%20Guide%20Final%2012062016_FINAL%20508C.pdf<https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OEC%20TSP%20Operations%20Guide%20Final%2012062016_FINAL%20508C.pdf> My understanding, and what we did while I worked for a Tier I ISP, was that even for degraded circuits we had to do everything in our power to restore to full operations. If capacity is an issue and causes TSP coded DIA circuits to be unusable then that falls under the "any reason" clause of that line. - Mike Bolitho If you're going to bang that drum, the place you're going to get the most buck-for-your-bang is using it to force better cooperation between ISPs. It appears that baking cakes was not sufficient to get recalcitrant players to work together. https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031195041<https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031195041> Perhaps a global pandemic may be sufficient to have government begin to *compel* networks to interconnect at locations at which they share common peering infrastructure? If you're worried about congestion and performance, that would be the place to start pushing. Matt staying safely at home away from the flame-fest that may ensue from this. ^_^;
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, at 10:31, Steve Mikulasik via NANOG wrote:
In Canada the CRTC really needs to get on Canadian ISPs about peering very liberally at IXs in each province. I know of one major institution right now that would have a major work from home issue resolved if one big ISP would peer with one big tier 1 in the IX they are both located at in the same province. Instead traffic needs to flow across the country or to the USA to get back to the same city.
**cough** Bell Canada **cough**. -- Sadiq Saif https://sadiqsaif.com/
Every large ISP does this (or rather, doesn't) at every IX in Canada. Bell isn't unique by any stretch. It's not in their economic interest to peer at a local IX, because from their perspective, the IX takes away business (Managed L2 point-to-point circuits, at the very least) from them. Don't expect the dominant wireline ISP(s) in any region to join local IXes anytime soon, sadly, no matter how much it would benefit their customers. After all, the customer is always free to purchase service to the IX and join the IX, right??? *grumble* In my local case, if BellMTS joined MBIX, un-cached DNS resolution times could potentially drop by 15msec. That's HUGE. But the end-user experience is not their primary goal. Their primary goal is profit, as always. -Adam Thompson Founding member, MBIX (once upon a time) Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services MERLIN 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) athompson@merlin.mb.ca www.merlin.mb.ca
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Sadiq Saif Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:38 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. peering wars
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, at 10:31, Steve Mikulasik via NANOG wrote:
In Canada the CRTC really needs to get on Canadian ISPs about peering very liberally at IXs in each province. I know of one major institution right now that would have a major work from home issue resolved if one big ISP would peer with one big tier 1 in the IX they are both located at in the same province. Instead traffic needs to flow across the country or to the USA to get back to the same city.
**cough** Bell Canada **cough**.
-- Sadiq Saif https://sadiqsaif.com/
I'm curious; would people say that fixing peering inefficiencies could have a bigger impact on service performance than asking that Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube, Hulu, and other video streaming services cut their bit rates down? https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51968302 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/netflix-and-youtube-cut-streamin... It seems that perhaps the fingers, and the regulatory hammer, are being pointed in the wrong direction at the moment. ^_^; Matt staying safely under the saran-wrap blanket for the next few weeks On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 9:31 AM Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> wrote:
Every large ISP does this (or rather, doesn't) at every IX in Canada. Bell isn't unique by any stretch.
It's not in their economic interest to peer at a local IX, because from their perspective, the IX takes away business (Managed L2 point-to-point circuits, at the very least) from them.
Don't expect the dominant wireline ISP(s) in any region to join local IXes anytime soon, sadly, no matter how much it would benefit their customers. After all, the customer is always free to purchase service to the IX and join the IX, right??? *grumble*
In my local case, if BellMTS joined MBIX, un-cached DNS resolution times could potentially drop by 15msec. That's HUGE. But the end-user experience is not their primary goal. Their primary goal is profit, as always.
-Adam Thompson Founding member, MBIX (once upon a time)
Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services MERLIN 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) athompson@merlin.mb.ca www.merlin.mb.ca
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Sadiq Saif Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:38 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. peering wars
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, at 10:31, Steve Mikulasik via NANOG wrote:
In Canada the CRTC really needs to get on Canadian ISPs about peering very liberally at IXs in each province. I know of one major institution right now that would have a major work from home issue resolved if one big ISP would peer with one big tier 1 in the IX they are both located at in the same province. Instead traffic needs to flow across the country or to the USA to get back to the same city.
**cough** Bell Canada **cough**.
-- Sadiq Saif https://sadiqsaif.com/
Worldwide, I don’t know. In Canada, peering is pretty messed up, i.e. it simply doesn’t happen at scale. At all. Even where it should. The overwhelmingly vast majority of Canadian traffic, even when nominally in-country, still transits the USA somewhere. If we had “ideal” full-mesh peering (i.e. setting aside all commercial considerations) at, say, regional IXes, including various popular CDNs, then service would take a giant step for the better for everyone who isn’t a big-4 (Bell, Telus, Shaw or Rogers) customer. Which admittedly would be an improvement for “only” about 30%-40% of the population… negligible, really, we’re only a country of 10M after all :-/. FYI, we have 4 big ISPs because none of them cover the entire country: they all* descend from local/regional monopolies or duopolies. *Mostly, that’s an approximation. -Adam Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services [[MERLIN LOGO]]<https://www.merlin.mb.ca/> 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) athompson@merlin.mb.ca<mailto:athompson@merlin.mb.ca> www.merlin.mb.ca<http://www.merlin.mb.ca/> From: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 2:31 PM To: Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca> Cc: Sadiq Saif <lists@sadiqsaif.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. peering wars I'm curious; would people say that fixing peering inefficiencies could have a bigger impact on service performance than asking that Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube, Hulu, and other video streaming services cut their bit rates down? https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51968302 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/netflix-and-youtube-cut-streamin... It seems that perhaps the fingers, and the regulatory hammer, are being pointed in the wrong direction at the moment. ^_^; Matt staying safely under the saran-wrap blanket for the next few weeks On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 9:31 AM Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca<mailto:athompson@merlin.mb.ca>> wrote: Every large ISP does this (or rather, doesn't) at every IX in Canada. Bell isn't unique by any stretch. It's not in their economic interest to peer at a local IX, because from their perspective, the IX takes away business (Managed L2 point-to-point circuits, at the very least) from them. Don't expect the dominant wireline ISP(s) in any region to join local IXes anytime soon, sadly, no matter how much it would benefit their customers. After all, the customer is always free to purchase service to the IX and join the IX, right??? *grumble* In my local case, if BellMTS joined MBIX, un-cached DNS resolution times could potentially drop by 15msec. That's HUGE. But the end-user experience is not their primary goal. Their primary goal is profit, as always. -Adam Thompson Founding member, MBIX (once upon a time) Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services MERLIN 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) athompson@merlin.mb.ca<mailto:athompson@merlin.mb.ca> www.merlin.mb.ca<http://www.merlin.mb.ca>
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Sadiq Saif Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:38 AM To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. peering wars
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, at 10:31, Steve Mikulasik via NANOG wrote:
In Canada the CRTC really needs to get on Canadian ISPs about peering very liberally at IXs in each province. I know of one major institution right now that would have a major work from home issue resolved if one big ISP would peer with one big tier 1 in the IX they are both located at in the same province. Instead traffic needs to flow across the country or to the USA to get back to the same city.
**cough** Bell Canada **cough**.
-- Sadiq Saif https://sadiqsaif.com/
Regardless of the possible gain from “solving” peering. You are talking about renegotiating thousands of individual agreements between hundreds of individual organizations, all while everyone is in lockdown. or You ask a handful of companies to make changes to their own systems. Good luck with the peering, I believe the bit rates have already been changed. Bradley
On Mar 21, 2020, at 4:31 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
I'm curious; would people say that fixing peering inefficiencies could have a bigger impact on service performance than asking that Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube, Hulu, and other video streaming services cut their bit rates down?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51968302 <https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51968302> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/netflix-and-youtube-cut-streamin... <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/netflix-and-youtube-cut-streaming-quality-in-europe-to-handle-pandemic/>
It seems that perhaps the fingers, and the regulatory hammer, are being pointed in the wrong direction at the moment. ^_^;
Matt staying safely under the saran-wrap blanket for the next few weeks
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 9:31 AM Adam Thompson <athompson@merlin.mb.ca <mailto:athompson@merlin.mb.ca>> wrote: Every large ISP does this (or rather, doesn't) at every IX in Canada. Bell isn't unique by any stretch.
It's not in their economic interest to peer at a local IX, because from their perspective, the IX takes away business (Managed L2 point-to-point circuits, at the very least) from them.
Don't expect the dominant wireline ISP(s) in any region to join local IXes anytime soon, sadly, no matter how much it would benefit their customers. After all, the customer is always free to purchase service to the IX and join the IX, right??? *grumble*
In my local case, if BellMTS joined MBIX, un-cached DNS resolution times could potentially drop by 15msec. That's HUGE. But the end-user experience is not their primary goal. Their primary goal is profit, as always.
-Adam Thompson Founding member, MBIX (once upon a time)
Adam Thompson Consultant, Infrastructure Services MERLIN 100 - 135 Innovation Drive Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8 (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only) athompson@merlin.mb.ca <mailto:athompson@merlin.mb.ca> www.merlin.mb.ca <http://www.merlin.mb.ca/>
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org <mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Sadiq Saif Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 9:38 AM To: nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: COVID-19 vs. peering wars
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, at 10:31, Steve Mikulasik via NANOG wrote:
In Canada the CRTC really needs to get on Canadian ISPs about peering very liberally at IXs in each province. I know of one major institution right now that would have a major work from home issue resolved if one big ISP would peer with one big tier 1 in the IX they are both located at in the same province. Instead traffic needs to flow across the country or to the USA to get back to the same city.
**cough** Bell Canada **cough**.
-- Sadiq Saif https://sadiqsaif.com/ <https://sadiqsaif.com/>
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020, at 20:31, Matthew Petach wrote:
Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube, Hulu, and other video streaming services cut their bit rates down?
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51968302 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/netflix-and-youtube-cut-streamin...
It seems that perhaps the fingers, and the regulatory hammer, are being pointed in the wrong direction at
There was not regulation for that. There were some politicians crying out and loud in the media that streaming platforms should reduce bit-rates. Netflix took the opportunity to try (sooner than initially scheduled) new compression schemes/algorithms on their platform. Further, they took the opportunity to say "everything is OK, the new stuff will be deployed full-scale around Europe". In parallel, other streaming platforms took their measures, some of them as simple as "default is one level lower" (720p instead of 1080p, or even 480p instead of 720p). That went as far as platforms that would never be named explicitly by any "responsible" politician (like pornhub and sorts). Chances are the results of the "bitrate reduction" will end up in the US pretty soon. Netflix are also insisting on the fact that it's not a quality reduction, just new compression allowing for lower bitrates over the wire. The French regulator is even very decent in this respect, the official message being : "situation is overall good, in the rare cases and places where there are issues operators will do heir job to fix the issues". In general, there are no new issues, just probably more people realising the issues that already existed for some time. Peering-wise, BAU, nothing new. Only thing is one of the 4 majors ISPs, ~21% market share, over 98% IPv6 deployment on fixed (and 0% on mobile) mono-homed to Cogent and de-peering HE. They are not peering as a general rule.
On 5/Apr/20 15:52, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
There was not regulation for that. There were some politicians crying out and loud in the media that streaming platforms should reduce bit-rates. Netflix took the opportunity to try (sooner than initially scheduled) new compression schemes/algorithms on their platform. Further, they took the opportunity to say "everything is OK, the new stuff will be deployed full-scale around Europe". In parallel, other streaming platforms took their measures, some of them as simple as "default is one level lower" (720p instead of 1080p, or even 480p instead of 720p). That went as far as platforms that would never be named explicitly by any "responsible" politician (like pornhub and sorts). Chances are the results of the "bitrate reduction" will end up in the US pretty soon. Netflix are also insisting on the fact that it's not a quality reduction, just new compression allowing for lower bitrates over the wire.
The French regulator is even very decent in this respect, the official message being : "situation is overall good, in the rare cases and places where there are issues operators will do heir job to fix the issues".
In general, there are no new issues, just probably more people realising the issues that already existed for some time.
Curious - if anyone is actively monitoring streaming traffic trends, have you seen a "decrease" in that graph even though you are sure the same number of eyeballs (or even more) are online? Especially for those VoD providers who are implementing new compression algorithms, and not necessarily reducing resolution? Mark.
On 19/Mar/20 18:53, Mike Bolitho wrote:
I've said it over and over again, we have TSP and it could easily be used to enforce priority to emergency preparedness customers. It's built into the language.
Command & Control, promoted by "policy makers" who "do not see the shift". You can't tell people what to do with their online experience. These policies worked in the pre-Internet-on-a-device-en-masse age. They don't work in 2020. Mark.
On 19/Mar/20 18:05, Mike Bolitho wrote:
I was getting blasted earlier for suggesting streaming services and gaming DLCs could likely be slowed by government intervention. EU is currently working with Netflix to do just that. It's currently a strong suggestion and even a plead but I maintain that we're going to see this pushed harder in the coming weeks.
In a statement on Thursday, Breton said that given the unprecedented situation, streaming platforms, telecom operators and users "all have a joint responsibility to take steps to ensure the smooth functioning of the internet during the battle against the virus propagation."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/19/tech/netflix-internet-overload-eu/index.html
Well that's pretty desperate. If you have an OCA connected to your network to serve your customers, I'm not sure taking streams down from HD to SD actually moves the needle. Mark.
Noticing a few major ISPs not peering with other major networks at their local IXs, instead taking cross country trips. I am sure this isn't helping congestion right now and I have heard from some people it is really affecting their remote users. People in the same city with 80ms-100ms latencies. Some companies with restrictive policies should review their peering policies and start really utilizing IXs for some quick capacity. Maybe afterwards regulators can look at peering policies and how it affects their nation.
participants (20)
-
Adam Thompson -
Alexandre Petrescu -
Blake Hudson -
Bradley Huffaker -
Florian Weimer -
Jeff Shultz -
Keith Medcalf -
Mark Tinka -
Matt Erculiani -
Matt Hoppes -
Matthew Petach -
Mel Beckman -
Mike Bolitho -
Mike Hammett -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
Rich Kulawiec -
Sadiq Saif -
Scott Weeks -
Steve Mikulasik -
Tom Beecher