<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: PAIX</title></head><body>
<div>At 16:01 -0800 11/15/02, Jere Retzer wrote:</div>
<div>Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-7<br>
Content-Description: HTML<br>
</div>
<div>Some thoughts:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>- Coast-to-coast "guaranteed latency" seems too low in
most cases that I've seen. Not calling CEOs and marketers liars but
the real world doesn't seem to do as well as the promises. As VOIP
takes off "local" IP exchanges will continue/increase
in importance because people won't tolerate high latency. What
percentage of your phone calls are local?</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Well the bingo latency number used a lot in voice is 50ms.
Im simplifing without getting into all the details, but that's an
important number. As far as VoIP goes, I think higher latency is
ok, it's more important to have "consistent" latency.
Fluctuating latency really affects VoIP more then a higher consistent
latency. There are a lot of people doing VoIP and traditional
voice on satellites and the latency there is huge. Coast to
coast latency on a good network is ~45 - 65ms depending on which
customers you talk to. Most phone calls are local as I mentioned
in an earlier post so I do agree with you here that it would be a
replacement for the traditional CO.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>- Yes, we do various kinds of video over Internet2. Guess what?
Packet loss is very important. Fewer hops mean fewer lost
packets. Local exchanges, if there were lots of them with lots of
peering reduces the theoretical number of hops. Who will most of the
videoconferences involve in the future � I think mostly people who
see each other face-to-face periodically. Leading this are telework
and telemed. Broadband is getting to the point that people will want
to call up their doc/clinic rather than jump in the car just to be
told to go home and go to bed, and get exposed to someone who has a
contagious disease. Nursing homes, assisted living facilities,
emergency rooms in mall towns should be key targets for this
technology.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Fewer hops = less packet loss? There has been a lot of
discussion on the list about that. I still dont see it although
it does push latency up a bit. Truth is that there are a lot of
tunnels or express routes build in, so we arent seeing all the hops
nowadays. I think that's more for sales and marketing as people
keep judging networks by hops in a traceroute.</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>- While we're on the topic of local video, what happens when
television migrates to IP networks? Seems like the "local"
news should want to originate somewhere close. Most of our local
TV and radio stations are part of chain today and their corporate
headquarters have decided to host their web site at a central location
without even worrying about Akamai or other local caching.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>An IP backbone is a bad place for live TV. Delayed or on
demand tv yes. Live tv plays to the benefits of One to Many
broadcast ability of satellite as Doug Humphrey will tell you.
So a feed from a DSS dish into your local cache would work well.
It still can be done at a per city peering point to better feed the
broadband users. Its the simplest solution probably although I
know someone will mention multicast here...</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Actually I find it interesting that the movie industry is taking
the initiative and putting up a website to do streaming movies for
free to users. They are trying to learn from the mistakes of the
music industry. Perhaps this is the killer app since it's one to
one transmission over the IP backbone. It would be ironic if
hollywood trying to avoid video theft drove peering and IP growth....
interesting world we live in.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Have a nice weekend.</div>
<div>dd</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>- Unfortunately, these applications do not work with today's
local broadband networks � one reason being the lack of local
interconnection. People have quit believing the Radio Shack ads. We
have the technology to make these applications work if we'd stop
arguing that no one wants to use them. Of course no one wants to use
them � they know they won't work!<br>
<br>
>>> David Diaz <techlist@smoton.net> 11/14/02 05:52PM
>>><br>
<br>
Voice of reason...</div>
<div><br>
The only possible reason I can think of is if these data networks<br>
replace the present voice infrastructure. Think about it, if
we<br>
really all do replace our phones with some video screen like in
the<br>
movies, then yes, most of those calls stay local within the
cities.<br>
Mom calling son etc etc<br>
<br>
So we can think of these "peering centers" as replacements
for the<br>
5-10 COs in most average cities.<br>
<br>
Otherwise what apps require such dense peering.<br>
<br>
<br>
At 14:44 -0800 11/14/02, Vadim Antonov wrote:<br>
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, David Diaz wrote:<br>
><br>
>> 2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering
every 100 sq Km.<br>
><br>
>Peering every 100 sq km is absolutely infeasible. Just think
of the<br>
>number of alternative paths routing algorithms wil lhave to
consider.<br>
><br>
>Anything like that would require serious redesign of Internet's
routing<br>
>architecture.<br>
><br>
>--vadim</div>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>