Re: Streaming dead again.
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, John Todd wrote: (snip) Now, back to the NANOG-ish content: I know a fundamental change in technology when I see it, and VOIP is an obvious winner. VOIP has been smoldering for a few years, and the sudden growth of various easy-to-implement SIP proxies and service platforms, plus the sudden drop in price of SIP hard-phones, is going to push growth tremendously. Currently, the underlying technology is UDP that moves calls around. This is all well and good until you get thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of calls going at once. QoS is, as Bill says, not a problem right now on public networks; I've used VOIP across at least three exchange or peering sessions (in each direction, no less!) and suffered no quality loss, even at 80kbps rates. However, when a significant percentage of cable and DSL customers across the country figure this technology out, does this cause problems for those providers? Is it worthwhile for large end-user aggregators to start figuring out how they are going to offer this service locally on their own networks in order to save on transit traffic to other peers/providers? Or is this merely a tiny bump in traffic, not worth worrying about? More interestingly: what happens to the network when the first shared LD software comes into creation? Imagine 1/3 (to pick a worst-case percentage) of your customers producing and consuming (possibly) 80kbps of traffic for 5 hours a day as they offer their local analog lines to anyone who wants to make local calls to that calling area. Overseas calling I expect will show similar growth. Nobody wants to pay $.20 or even $.10 per minute to Asian nations, so as soon as Joe User figures out how this VOIP stuff works, there will be (is?) a tendency for UDP increases on inter-continental spans. Nothing new here; we've all said this was coming for years. Now it's finally possible - is everyone ready? JT (snip) VOIP is likely to cause a financial upheaval in the telecom industry, because the overwhelming fraction of revenues still comes from voice services. However, VOIP is likely to have only a minor impact on Internet backbones. The reason is that there simply isn't that much voice traffic. Various estimates (such as those in my papers at http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/networks.html) say that already there is about twice as much US Internet backbone traffic as US long distance voice traffic, and that is if you count voice as two 64 Kb/s streams of data. If you use compression, that goes down even further. Now introducing flat rate VOIP service will stimulate voice usage some, but based on various previous experiences, not by enough to make a quantum difference, especially since (again, based on previous experiences) it will take a while for VOIP to spread widely. Andrew Odlyzko
Re: Streaming dead again.
As of 9:00 AM EST, I am not seeing any of the multicast groups here - more precisely, I can see rtcp traffic from other group members, but not the broadcasts themselves. Regards Marshall Eubanks T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc. 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.multicasttech.com Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ Status of Multicast on the Web : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
Re: Streaming dead again.
On Wednesday, Feb 12, 2003, at 08:44 Canada/Eastern, Andrew Odlyzko wrote: VOIP is likely to cause a financial upheaval in the telecom industry, because the overwhelming fraction of revenues still comes from voice services. However, VOIP is likely to have only a minor impact on Internet backbones. The reason is that there simply isn't that much voice traffic. About five years ago, before Southern Cross came live and we were struggling to find trans-Pacific bandwidth to New Zealand, we looked at the idea of running our internal voice and IP traffic between NZ and the US on some kind of converged network, to take advantage of the fact that the IP peak load and the voice peak load were about eight hours out of phase. There were lots of nice graphs that showed a big trough in voice network utilisation almost exactly corresponding with peak IP demand, and everything looked very promising until you noticed that the Y axis on the voice graph was measured in k, and that of the IP graph was measured in megs. The benefit to be gained by being able to burst into the voice trunks was so marginal that it wasn't worth spending the time thinking about how we would do it. (Every discussion involving mixing voice and data at that company always wound up involving ATM, too, which was another good reason to back away and quietly kill the idea before any madness ensued. I hear it didn't work, though; the company in question was happily running ATM over trans-pacific STM-1s after I left, with AAL5 frames intermingled with circuit emulation. Presumably the 30% cell tax and frame-padding overhead is some kind of ritual offering to the God of QoS, that magic deity whose name was always invoked to explain why ATM was being used for anything). If that experience is representative of today's network as a whole, voice is not going to add much traffic to the Internet, relative to traffic that is already carried. Of course this has nothing to do with whether the Internet today is suitable as a transport for isochronous voice services. But it's always fun to recount an anecdote in which you laugh at ATM. Joe
Streaming dead again.
Dying at merit.demarc.cogentco.com with 3561ms figures in traceroute. How many would pay some $$$ for this to be moved in the future to a premium service provided by someone like RealMedia. Methinks the merit servers are getting crushed. I'd pony up some $$$ to virtually attend it if it were reliable. Seems a lot less reliable this time around. FWIW, if the only video shot is a long shot of a talking head wireless discussion, save the bandwidth and only stream the audio, or cut to the slides if there are some. Burning 80k to see a pixelated animation doesn't do anyone any good. Eric == Eric GermannCCTec [EMAIL PROTECTED] Van Wert OH 45801 http://www.cctec.comPh: 419 968 2640 Fax: 603 825 5893 The fact that there are actually ways of knowing and characterizing the extent of ones ignorance, while still remaining ignorant, may ultimately be more interesting and useful to people than Yarkovsky -- Jon Giorgini of NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Germann;Eric FN:Eric Germann ORG:CCTec TEL;WORK;VOICE:(419) 968-2640 TEL;WORK;FAX:(603) 825-5893 ADR;WORK:;;17780 Middle Point Road;Van Wert;OH;45891;United States of America LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:17780 Middle Point Road=0D=0AVan Wert, OH 45891=0D=0AUnited States of Americ= a URL: URL:http://www.cctec.com EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] REV:20010529T013421Z END:VCARD
Re: Streaming dead again.
How many would pay some $$$ for this to be moved in the future to a premium service provided by someone like RealMedia. Methinks the merit servers are getting crushed. Methinkg Akamai might be a candidate to offer this service to nanog in the future perhaps? :) Avi? FWIW the stream is working fine for me except they're not showing the slides... -Scott
Re: Streaming dead again.
I'm not sure whom to contact, but if the person responsible for the webcasts want's to contact me off list, I can offer up some idea's. (I've got some experience pushing webcast's to 2000+) Matt On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:51:06 -0500 Eric Germann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dying at merit.demarc.cogentco.com with 3561ms figures in traceroute. How many would pay some $$$ for this to be moved in the future to a premium service provided by someone like RealMedia. Methinks the merit servers are getting crushed. I'd pony up some $$$ to virtually attend it if it were reliable. Seems a lot less reliable this time around. FWIW, if the only video shot is a long shot of a talking head wireless discussion, save the bandwidth and only stream the audio, or cut to the slides if there are some. Burning 80k to see a pixelated animation doesn't do anyone any good. Eric = = Eric GermannCCTec [EMAIL PROTECTED] Van Wert OH 45801 http://www.cctec.comPh: 419 968 2640 Fax: 603 825 5893 The fact that there are actually ways of knowing and characterizing the extent of onemore interesting and useful to people than Yarkovsky -- Jon Giorgini of NASA
Re: Streaming dead again.
At 11:51 AM 2/11/2003, Eric Germann wrote: Dying at merit.demarc.cogentco.com with 3561ms figures in traceroute. How many would pay some $$$ for this to be moved in the future to a premium service provided by someone like RealMedia. Methinks the merit servers are getting crushed. Raises hand as someone who'd be willing to pay a virtual attendance fee. I'd pony up some $$$ to virtually attend it if it were reliable. Seems a lot less reliable this time around. I've tried several times to suggest a virtual attendance fee for IETF meetings as well. There seems to be significant resistance to the concept in that group, perhaps NANOG will be more receptive? For the fee, I'd expect some sort of a back-channel as well (IRC channel, email address or something so that folks who're attending virtually can ask questions of the presenter).
Re: Streaming dead again.
Eric, -- It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein (1879-1955) On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Eric Germann wrote: Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:51:06 -0500 From: Eric Germann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Streaming dead again. Dying at merit.demarc.cogentco.com with 3561ms figures in traceroute. I start seeing packet loss one hop before that 10. g7.ba21.b002281-1.ord01.atlas.cogentco.com (around 10%) Could somebody from Cogent take look to see what is going on ? Thanks German
Re: Streaming dead again.
How many folks are watching the multicast stream vs the unicast stream? Those watching the multicast stream really won't notice issues due to number of viewers. Perhaps the continuing degradation of the unicast stream is a bit of social engineering to get folks to move to multicast? If so, good for merit!
