2006.06.05 NANOG-NOTES Peering BOF notes

Tue Jun 6 13:10:21 UTC 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
> tracker.
> 

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,
> no.

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
> front.
> 
> 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
> money.

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.

/vijay