North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: 2006.06.05 NANOG-NOTES Peering BOF notes

  • From: vijay gill
  • Date: Tue Jun 06 09:11:41 2006

Matthew Petach wrote:

Thank you Matt, these notes are almost like being there. Excellent work.

Also Ted Seely at the peering bof? Shocked there wasn't a riot.

They're getting into the peering fray, and only a
year old.
This is gigs and gigs, has potential to dwarf
current peering traffic.  Current issues could be
tiny compared to the flood of potential issues when
hundreds of Gbs comes flooding towards customers.
Problem is extrapolating far into the future from rates seen at the very start. I remember some time ago numbers being thrown around of how quick imode was being adopted, which,if those rates had continued, would have meant most of the world being on imode today.

Swedish police, 100Gb of peer-to-peer traffic at
peak, AMSIX lost 10gig, LINX lost 5gigs, probably
lost about 40Gb weds/thurs last week when the swedish
police shut it down.  Which site?  Pirate Bay torrent

Do we have weekly and monthly stats? This looks interesting.

Comment from audience is that live events are
still going to be the challenge; HDTV is getting
gb/sec from cameras, needs to feed it out, no
chance to cache, so multicast ends up being the
only viable option for it.
Multicast is caching with zero retention time -avg.

Robert Seastrom--should you do v6 at all?
Should you be a pioneer, and make the v6 people
happy, sure, do it; if you want to make money,
I think Alain from comcast had a different take on it.

DanGolding notes that the tier1's are stuck on
a treadmill; they can't peer with you even if
they desire it, for fear of messing with their
own ratios.
I don't think sprint or 701 care too much about their own ratios any more.

Dan Golding, network neutrality on the peering

One year old company, video content, already doing
20gig/sec.  This is a buttload of traffic, and they're
already getting into the peering mode; will this traffic
ultimately dwarf the rest of our traffic?
Depends on if this is a sustainable business model. During the dotcom days, lots of companies were going to dwarf the rest of our traffic, but things tend to return to mean. It gets harder to sustain 20% growth rates month over month, the further up and to the right you go.

Others are tempted to jump on.
MSOs see non-neutrality as a way to keep other's
VoIP off their networks
On the other hand, the Bells will squeeze them; the cable
companies lack peering.
I am not convinced lack of peering is such a huge impediment, esp. at transit rates going on now a days (see matt's earlier notes).

Patrick Gilmore: Tier 0, how does that work when
VZ and ATT don't make up the bulk of the internet
anymore.  What about the rest of the world?
Would this statement be true for bulk of the internet in the US? How is this determination made?

Patrick Gilmore asks for non-US peering coordinators;
who would care if ATT/VZ depeered you?
Not many respond
It is possible we could have learned more if the question were posed in the following fashion

1) How many non-US peering coordinators (have I mentioned how much I dislike this term, I prefer SFI Secretaries) have current, active peering with VZ/ATT?

2) Of those that answered yes to #1, how many would care if they depeered you?

Easy not to care when you don't have SFI in the first place.

Dan Golding notes that if we had many different
ways of getting local loop to your house, it
would be less of an issue.

Incent development of alternate methods; wifi,
3G/4G/5G networks, etc.
Hah, wireless is never going to compete on a purely bandwidth perspective with fiber/copper (regardless of the chorus of people sounding off of how wifi is used to get the majority of bits on cable/dsl - true, but thats a very limited scope deployment, we are talking about replacement of cable/dsl here, not how to get from your couch to the wall-jack). The way to get wireless working is to emphasize the mobile aspect of wireless, but with youtube et al pushing huge bits, wireless as a replacement cable/dsl, not so likely.

Mikhail Abramson, with high speed cellular,
mobile is making network neutrality less of an
issue, since you do have more options.  The GSM
providers are happy with the internet bandwidth
usage on mobile data, it's making them really good
Details and breakdown of revenue? Is it ringtone and SMS bandwidth, or is it gprs/hspda type bandwidth.

If we all went to a common $10 provider, we could
create a new tier0 and bypass the bellheads.
The last mile _consumers_ aren't likely to be able to go to this $10 carrier.