Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
On Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:06:42 PM Jay Ashworth wrote: I'm not saying you need the whole 19mbps (though, remember here, we are not talking about Additional Carriage; we are talking about *being the only way people can see that game* -- and my example was the Super Bowl).. but unless MPEG algorithms have gotten *much* better than I'm aware of, 5mb/s is probably not enough for the Super Bowl. And you'd really be better off with some FEC, too, even if it costs you a couple frames extra delay. For broadcast networks, what we're seeing they like is that unlike satellite transmissions, there is more flexibility for them on IP (IPTv), which would let them lift compression rates and pack more data into a stream. But because most of them are primarily satellite broadcasting houses, only starting to roll-out IPTv, they need to maintain parity on both transmission media. Whatever the case, 5Mbps would be too low. At 1080i, we have a customer pushing HD channels at about 13Mbps a piece, give or take. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
On (2012-01-11 17:45 -0500), Justin M. Streiner wrote: If multicast is used it shouldn't take 150pbps, it should be much lower. That could be one of the things that helps spur v6 adoption - multicast being somewhat less of an afterthought :) While v4 multicast works, and delivering video is one of the things it can do very well, some networks don't route v4 multicast or exchange v4 multicast prefixes, so its utility on a wide scale can be limited. This is misguided, IPV6 does no magic to help scale multicast to Internet scale compared to IPV4. Scaling multicast to Internet scale would make our core routers essentially flow based routers. And as there is finite amount of how many of these flows you could hold, we would need some way to globally regulate how and who can push their content as multicast and save lot of money and who will have to pay the full price. Those who are left out, might feel like multicast is used to stop competition. Now maybe we could specify some sort of stateless 'manycast' in IPv6, where you'd map destination AS numbers as source address. Needing to send only one copy of traffic per destination ASN (or less if you can map multiple ASN in source address), and then destination ASN would need to have Magic Box to do stateful magic and could cherry-pick what they care about. But that's lot of complexity for very incomplete solution, as it would only remove states from transit. -- ++ytti
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012, Saku Ytti wrote: This is misguided, IPV6 does no magic to help scale multicast to Internet scale compared to IPV4. Actually, IPv6 embedded RP improves scalability over IPv4 MSDP peering and ASM. -- Antonio Querubin e-mail: t...@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioqueru...@gmail.com
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
On (2012-01-15 09:47 -1000), Antonio Querubin wrote: This is misguided, IPV6 does no magic to help scale multicast to Internet scale compared to IPV4. Actually, IPv6 embedded RP improves scalability over IPv4 MSDP peering and ASM. Unfortunately that does exactly nothing to help with Internet scale. Now scaling for your local environment embedded RP might be beneficial, but actual practical applications where you need ASM are very few. -- ++ytti
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
On Jan 15, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: Unfortunately that does exactly nothing to help with Internet scale. Now scaling for your local environment embedded RP might be beneficial, but actual practical applications where you need ASM are very few. Most vendors took out hardware multicast support and do it via recirculation these days. I'm more interested in other topics, this would likely be served by a CDN, and I'm curious if any CDNs have started placing gear behind CGN/LSN. I've also noticed some hotels and other 'guest net' folks capturing 4.2.2.1 and comparable open recursive name servers in-house. Two weeks ago I could ping 4.2.2.1 and get responses when TTL was set to 1 on my outgoing packets. - Jared
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
On Jan 15, 2012 1:40 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: On Jan 15, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: Unfortunately that does exactly nothing to help with Internet scale. Now scaling for your local environment embedded RP might be beneficial, but actual practical applications where you need ASM are very few. Most vendors took out hardware multicast support and do it via recirculation these days. I'm more interested in other topics, this would likely be served by a CDN, and I'm curious if any CDNs have started placing gear behind CGN/LSN. CDNs have shown hesitation to receiving traffic from non-unique ipv4 space despite the obvious benefits of CGN bypass. Cb I've also noticed some hotels and other 'guest net' folks capturing 4.2.2.1 and comparable open recursive name servers in-house. Two weeks ago I could ping 4.2.2.1 and get responses when TTL was set to 1 on my outgoing packets. - Jared
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
It will be at least 9-10 years before Google could bid. I think the TV networks get a chance to renew before anyone else can even bid. Unless the NFL decides to do something with the NFL Network games they are likely SOL. ESPN renewed their MNF contract through 2021. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/sports/football/espn-extends-deal-with-nfl-for-15-billion.html CBS, FOX, and NBC have renewed their contracts through 2022. http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/19/nfl-renews-tv-deals-with-cbs-fox-nbc-for-nine-more-years-mone/
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:41:15 EST, Jay Ashworth said: Is 'The Internet' ready to deliver live 1080p HD with very close to zero dropouts to 25-30 million viewers for 4 hours straight every week, yet? Depends how much compression you use. :) pgprMJ4o8lC7c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 19:11, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:41:15 EST, Jay Ashworth said: Is 'The Internet' ready to deliver live 1080p HD with very close to zero dropouts to 25-30 million viewers for 4 hours straight every week, yet? Depends how much compression you use. :) We will certainly see the next frontier of bitrate starvation. And y'all thought shoving 50 channels on a single satellite transceiver tier was bad! -- Darius Jahandarie
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
Smart tv's should help, no? - Original Message - From: Darius Jahandarie [mailto:djahanda...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 08:04 PM To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google? On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 19:11, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:41:15 EST, Jay Ashworth said: Is 'The Internet' ready to deliver live 1080p HD with very close to zero dropouts to 25-30 million viewers for 4 hours straight every week, yet? Depends how much compression you use. :) We will certainly see the next frontier of bitrate starvation. And y'all thought shoving 50 channels on a single satellite transceiver tier was bad! -- Darius Jahandarie __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. __
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:19:57 GMT, George Fitzpatrick said: Smart tv's should help, no? Only so much. No matter what they show on CSI about enhancing video, if that stream got compressed so the football Tim Tebow just threw is just a brown ellipse, there;s no legitimate way to put the seams back on that sucker. pgpUuvTY3Ligi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:19:57 GMT, George Fitzpatrick said: Smart tv's should help, no? Only so much. No matter what they show on CSI about enhancing video, if that stream got compressed so the football Tim Tebow just threw is just a brown ellipse, there;s no legitimate way to put the seams back on that sucker. But the TV should only be receiving one stream at a time, unless there is pip. Each stream would probably be around 5mbps. If multicast is used it shouldn't take 150pbps, it should be much lower.
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012, Philip Dorr wrote: But the TV should only be receiving one stream at a time, unless there is pip. Each stream would probably be around 5mbps. If multicast is used it shouldn't take 150pbps, it should be much lower. That could be one of the things that helps spur v6 adoption - multicast being somewhat less of an afterthought :) While v4 multicast works, and delivering video is one of the things it can do very well, some networks don't route v4 multicast or exchange v4 multicast prefixes, so its utility on a wide scale can be limited. jms
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
Darius Jahandarie wrote: On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 19:11, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:41:15 EST, Jay Ashworth said: Is 'The Internet' ready to deliver live 1080p HD with very close to zero dropouts to 25-30 million viewers for 4 hours straight every week, yet? Depends how much compression you use. :) We will certainly see the next frontier of bitrate starvation. And y'all thought shoving 50 channels on a single satellite transceiver tier was bad! Not sure where/what you're talking about, but here in the U.S.A, Dish Network and DirecTV seem to put a max of 7 MPEG 4 HD channels on a *transponder*. http://www.satelliteguys.us/thelist/index.php?page=sub --Michael
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 21:40, Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com wrote: Not sure where/what you're talking about, but here in the U.S.A, Dish Network and DirecTV seem to put a max of 7 MPEG 4 HD channels on a *transponder*. http://www.satelliteguys.us/thelist/index.php?page=sub --Michael Referring to some Japanese stations, like ATX-HD. It's not actually 30, but it's pretty bad. It's a brilliant stream of blocks you get back, not sure if you'd call it video... :p -- Darius Jahandarie
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
- Original Message - From: Philip Dorr tagn...@gmail.com But the TV should only be receiving one stream at a time, unless there is pip. Each stream would probably be around 5mbps. I believe you're an optimist. Weekly football is probably the second most important thing on a TV network behind the championships for whatever sport they're carrying, in a year. I'm not saying you need the whole 19mbps (though, remember here, we are not talking about Additional Carriage; we are talking about *being the only way people can see that game* -- and my example was the Super Bowl).. but unless MPEG algorithms have gotten *much* better than I'm aware of, 5mb/s is probably not enough for the Super Bowl. And you'd really be better off with some FEC, too, even if it costs you a couple frames extra delay. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
- Original Message - From: Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com Not sure where/what you're talking about, but here in the U.S.A, Dish Network and DirecTV seem to put a max of 7 MPEG 4 HD channels on a *transponder*. http://www.satelliteguys.us/thelist/index.php?page=sub Yup; at varying bit rates; I worked for a program provider to both, and I know just how fast the price goes up if you need enough signal to handle even *slow* motion. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google?
Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com Not sure where/what you're talking about, but here in the U.S.A, Dish Network and DirecTV seem to put a max of 7 MPEG 4 HD channels on a *transponder*. http://www.satelliteguys.us/thelist/index.php?page=sub Yup; at varying bit rates; I worked for a program provider to both, and I know just how fast the price goes up if you need enough signal to handle even *slow* motion. :-) Cheers, -- jra Cool. Is information about who buys what, closely guarded? If you have seen the effects of 'starving' content with fast motion, I'd be interested in hearing what that looked like. I'm familiar with resolution vs. screen size vs. viewing distance factors, btw. Thanks, --Michael
