Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[John Bourke]

Different kind of buffering problem ...

John Bourke on Mobile


> On 2 Sep 2019, at 21:25, Ray Bellis  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 02/09/2019 21:18, Simon Lockhart wrote:
>> 
>> In my experience, the STB (or TV) writes the multicast stream to disk, in 
>> much
>> the same way that my Sky box does when I press pause.
> 
> Duh, yes, I should have thought of that! :D
> 
> Ray
> 
> 

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Neil J. McRae]

The miracle of a Winchester!

On 02/09/2019, 22:17, "uknof on behalf of Ray Bellis" 
 wrote:



On 02/09/2019 20:43, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Linear TV is still huge - live sport, reality TV nonsense and coronation 
street.

How does multicast cope there whenever someone presses the "pause" button?

Ray

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Ray Bellis]

On 02/09/2019 21:18, Simon Lockhart wrote:


In my experience, the STB (or TV) writes the multicast stream to disk, in much
the same way that my Sky box does when I press pause.


Duh, yes, I should have thought of that! :D

Ray

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Simon Lockhart]

On Mon Sep 02, 2019 at 09:14:38PM +0100, Ray Bellis wrote:
> How does multicast cope there whenever someone presses the "pause" button?

In my experience, the STB (or TV) writes the multicast stream to disk, in much
the same way that my Sky box does when I press pause.

Simon

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Ray Bellis]

On 02/09/2019 20:43, Neil J. McRae wrote:

Linear TV is still huge - live sport, reality TV nonsense and coronation street.


How does multicast cope there whenever someone presses the "pause" button?

Ray

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Nicholas Humfrey]

Radio is huge too - 89% of the population tune into radio every week:
https://www.rajar.co.uk/docs/news/RAJAR_DataRelease_InfographicQ22019.pdf

I regularly have to remind myself that the people I know are not representative 
of the population as whole.

Sent from my phone


On 2 Sep 2019, at 20:49, Neil J. McRae 
mailto:n...@domino.org>> wrote:

Linear TV is still huge - live sport, reality TV nonsense and coronation street.

Sent from my iPhone

On 2 Sep 2019, at 18:51, Marek Isalski 
mailto:ma...@faelix.net>> wrote:

On 2 Sep 2019, at 17:37, Nicholas Humfrey 
mailto:nicholas.humf...@bbc.co.uk>> wrote:
Is there any chance of multicast making a resurgence? If everyone has gigabit 
internet to their homes, will the network cores be able to cope with everyone 
watching 35 Mbps UHD (Live) television streams simultaneously?

Isn't it all about on-demand streaming now, rather than broad-/multi-cast?  I 
mean, who actually watches live TV these days?  It seems like building a 
network for the future of video consumption (Millenial and Gen-Z) will need 
CDN-type nodes as close as possible to distribution/aggregation nodes rather 
than multicast across a backbone?  Maybe multicast still has a role to play to 
deliver content to set-top boxes...?

Marek Isalski
Technical Director, Faelix Limited, https://faelix.net/

Faelix Limited: Security, Networks & Software.  Registered in England and 
Wales.  Office: The Yard, 11 Bent Street, Manchester, M8 8NF.  Company: 
5852778.  VAT: 889 441470.

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Neil J. McRae]

Linear TV is still huge - live sport, reality TV nonsense and coronation 
street. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 2 Sep 2019, at 18:51, Marek Isalski  wrote:

>> On 2 Sep 2019, at 17:37, Nicholas Humfrey  wrote:
>> Is there any chance of multicast making a resurgence? If everyone has 
>> gigabit internet to their homes, will the network cores be able to cope with 
>> everyone watching 35 Mbps UHD (Live) television streams simultaneously?
> 
> Isn't it all about on-demand streaming now, rather than broad-/multi-cast?  I 
> mean, who actually watches live TV these days?  It seems like building a 
> network for the future of video consumption (Millenial and Gen-Z) will need 
> CDN-type nodes as close as possible to distribution/aggregation nodes rather 
> than multicast across a backbone?  Maybe multicast still has a role to play 
> to deliver content to set-top boxes...?
> 
> Marek Isalski
> Technical Director, Faelix Limited, https://faelix.net/
> 
> Faelix Limited: Security, Networks & Software.  Registered in England and 
> Wales.  Office: The Yard, 11 Bent Street, Manchester, M8 8NF.  Company: 
> 5852778.  VAT: 889 441470.
> 
> 

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Neil J. McRae]

> By the time everyone has gigabit in their homes we'll be running petabit 
> round our cores. But by then everyone will want to watch holographic streams 
> and the colony on the moon will be complaining about latency.

Nope you need petabit long before folks have gigabit to their homes.

Neil. 

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Brandon Butterworth]

On Mon Sep 02, 2019 at 05:48:55PM +0100, Marek Isalski wrote:
> > On 2 Sep 2019, at 17:37, Nicholas Humfrey  
> > wrote:
> > Is there any chance of multicast making a resurgence? If everyone has 
> > gigabit internet to their homes, will the network cores be able to cope 
> > with everyone watching 35 Mbps UHD (Live) television streams simultaneously?

We (BBC but Bogons does too) still have it but it's dying out, our
transits are killing it, L3 gone NTT planning to. It was only used
to peers though

If it did come back we'd only be interested in V6 source specific
but that seems unlikely, The people we'd be delivering to like
BT/Sky would all do it privately

On Mon Sep 02, 2019 at 05:48:55PM +0100, Marek Isalski wrote:
> I mean, who actually watches live TV these days?

On demand was about 5% vs 95% live so far, it'll go more on demand
as thats the way the tech is moving.

We've been adding multicast to the dash spec so that for the
remainers it will use multicast if available so the home ISP
(or 5g carrier as there is a broadcast mode in there it can
tie into and use spectrum efficiently) can choose to embed our
CDN or set up multicast and the client will take whichever
works without user intervention.

brandon

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Nick Hilliard]

Neil J. McRae wrote on 02/09/2019 17:53:

BT TV is delivered via multicast. Works lovely and we sell TV connect
for those that want their content delivered via multicast.


intra-domain multicast is alive and kicking, and has a pile of 
interesting and viable applications:  one of these is TV delivery over 
residential access connections.


Inter-domain multicast is dead and buried.

Nick

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[David Derrick]

On 02/09/2019 17:37, Nicholas Humfrey wrote:


Is there any chance of multicast making a resurgence? If everyone has 
gigabit internet to their homes, will the network cores be able to cope 
with everyone watching 35 Mbps UHD (Live) television streams simultaneously?


By the time everyone has gigabit in their homes we'll be running petabit 
round our cores. But by then everyone will want to watch holographic 
streams and the colony on the moon will be complaining about latency.

--
David Derrick
Systems & Network Engineer
Entanet International Ltd
0330 100 0330

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Steve Pointer]

> Isn't it all about on-demand streaming now, rather than 
> broad-/multi-cast?  I mean, who actually watches live TV these days?  

I thought it was all about simultaneous game play now, who is to say multicast 
will not come into play again (pun intended) or with mixed reality in the 
future?

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Neil J. McRae]

BT TV is delivered via multicast. Works lovely and we sell TV connect for those 
that want their content delivered via multicast.

Sent from my iPhone

On 2 Sep 2019, at 18:51, Marek Isalski  wrote:

>> On 2 Sep 2019, at 17:37, Nicholas Humfrey  wrote:
>> Is there any chance of multicast making a resurgence? If everyone has 
>> gigabit internet to their homes, will the network cores be able to cope with 
>> everyone watching 35 Mbps UHD (Live) television streams simultaneously?
> 
> Isn't it all about on-demand streaming now, rather than broad-/multi-cast?  I 
> mean, who actually watches live TV these days?  It seems like building a 
> network for the future of video consumption (Millenial and Gen-Z) will need 
> CDN-type nodes as close as possible to distribution/aggregation nodes rather 
> than multicast across a backbone?  Maybe multicast still has a role to play 
> to deliver content to set-top boxes...?
> 
> Marek Isalski
> Technical Director, Faelix Limited, https://faelix.net/
> 
> Faelix Limited: Security, Networks & Software.  Registered in England and 
> Wales.  Office: The Yard, 11 Bent Street, Manchester, M8 8NF.  Company: 
> 5852778.  VAT: 889 441470.
> 
> 

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Marek Isalski]

> On 2 Sep 2019, at 17:37, Nicholas Humfrey  wrote:
> Is there any chance of multicast making a resurgence? If everyone has gigabit 
> internet to their homes, will the network cores be able to cope with everyone 
> watching 35 Mbps UHD (Live) television streams simultaneously?

Isn't it all about on-demand streaming now, rather than broad-/multi-cast?  I 
mean, who actually watches live TV these days?  It seems like building a 
network for the future of video consumption (Millenial and Gen-Z) will need 
CDN-type nodes as close as possible to distribution/aggregation nodes rather 
than multicast across a backbone?  Maybe multicast still has a role to play to 
deliver content to set-top boxes...?

Marek Isalski
Technical Director, Faelix Limited, https://faelix.net/

Faelix Limited: Security, Networks & Software.  Registered in England and 
Wales.  Office: The Yard, 11 Bent Street, Manchester, M8 8NF.  Company: 
5852778.  VAT: 889 441470.

Re: [uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Job Snijders]

Dear Nicholas,

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 6:37 PM Nicholas Humfrey 
wrote:

> I came across this Stackoverflow question:
>
> https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/47994/is-multicast-on-the-public-internet-possible-and-if-yes-how
>
> With accepted answer: "*You cannot multicast on the public Internet*"
> Which I guess is generally true. But is there still a multicast
> VLAN available at LoNAP and LINX? Is anyone using it for anything?
>
> I also saw that Internet 2 * "**will begin the sunset of Interdomain Any
> Source Multicast (ASM) " *- but
> in preference for Source Specific Multicast, so I guess the Multicast
> Internet exists in some parts of the world.
>
> Is there any chance of multicast making a resurgence? If everyone has
> gigabit internet to their homes, will the network cores be able to cope
> with everyone watching 35 Mbps UHD (Live) television streams simultaneously?
>

 Perhaps this NANOG thread is of interest to you "Confirming source-routed
multicast is dead on the public Internet"
https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2018-July/096600.html

I don't expect a resurgence of multicast any time soon, but perhaps BIER
brings new possibilities? (though if I'm not mistaken, it appears that BIER
is meant for not-Internet administrative domains)
https://www.ietfjournal.org/an-overview-of-bit-index-explicit-replication-bier/

Kind regards,

Job

[uknof] Current State of Multicast on the Internet?

[Nicholas Humfrey]

Hi,

When I was a student at the University of Southampton, I had access to the 
Multicast Internet 🎉


I came across this Stackoverflow question:
https://networkengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/47994/is-multicast-on-the-public-internet-possible-and-if-yes-how

With accepted answer: "You cannot multicast on the public Internet"
Which I guess is generally true. But is there still a multicast VLAN available 
at LoNAP and LINX? Is anyone using it for anything?

I also saw that Internet 2 "will begin the sunset of Interdomain Any Source 
Multicast (ASM)" - but in 
preference for Source Specific Multicast, so I guess the Multicast Internet 
exists in some parts of the world.


Is there any chance of multicast making a resurgence? If everyone has gigabit 
internet to their homes, will the network cores be able to cope with everyone 
watching 35 Mbps UHD (Live) television streams simultaneously?


nick.

Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

[Brandon Butterworth]

> NTT are refusing to sell a BGP service, whether on a dedicated
> port or a VLAN on an existing, unless it's directly to the end user.

I think they would sell it to you if you're terminating it in
your network, you are the end user. I don't see they'd care
or know that you provided access to your customer. It may be
just the way it's being asked that confuses things, perhaps
the customer has their own AS so they're sayihg that is who
must be on the contract, if so use yours/get another for this.

brandon

Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

[Matthew Butt - Netwise]

Hi Nick,

Spot on re the L2VPN, this is how we would deliver the service across our 
network to our client. It is getting the service in the first place that is the 
issue. NTT are refusing to sell a BGP service, whether on a dedicated port or a 
VLAN on an existing, unless it's directly to the end user.

Re transport, I'm not sure where this has come from. We aren’t discussing 
transport at all. We require a transit service, low CDR commit, but critically 
with BGP and a full table. To confirm, this is not a transport requirement.

Thanks for your time.

Kind regards,

Matthew Butt
MANAGING DIRECTOR | NETWISE

d: 020 3432 5060
t: 0845 430 9900
w: www.netwise.co.uk

This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended 
recipient(s)") to whom it has been addressed. It may contain information which 
is privileged and confidential within the meaning of applicable law. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible. 
Whilst every endeavour is taken to ensure that emails are free from viruses, no 
liability can be accepted for any damage arising from using this email. The 
views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the views held by 
Netwise Hosting Ltd. E&OE.

-Original Message-
From: Nick Hilliard  
Sent: 02 September 2019 15:14
To: Matthew Butt - Netwise 
Cc: Brandon Butterworth ; uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

Matthew Butt - Netwise wrote on 02/09/2019 15:04:
> Hi there Nick,
> 
> Apologies, but I'm not sure how else to explain this - price isnt the 
> issue. It wouldn’t matter whether it was £25 or £250. It is the fact 
> that NTTs stance is that they will only now sell BGP services directly 
> to the end user/network.
> 
> My question is, is anyone else experiencing the same? If not, are you 
> able to quote me please for a 10Mbps VLAN or dedicated port directly 
> onto NTTs network (or transparently through your own) with BGP and a 
> full table.

Then wouldn't it be possible to take the client in on a l2vpn / p2p ethernet 
connection, and hook this up to a physical cross-connect into the NTT service?  
It's more expensive, but there's no reason that it wouldn't work.

Maybe part of the issue here seems to be that NTT isn't in the business of 
providing low speed transport services, e.g. anything less than 10G carrier.

Nick

Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

[Nick Hilliard]

Matthew Butt - Netwise wrote on 02/09/2019 15:04:

Hi there Nick,

Apologies, but I'm not sure how else to explain this - price isnt the
issue. It wouldn’t matter whether it was £25 or £250. It is the fact
that NTTs stance is that they will only now sell BGP services
directly to the end user/network.

My question is, is anyone else experiencing the same? If not, are you
able to quote me please for a 10Mbps VLAN or dedicated port directly
onto NTTs network (or transparently through your own) with BGP and a
full table.


Then wouldn't it be possible to take the client in on a l2vpn / p2p 
ethernet connection, and hook this up to a physical cross-connect into 
the NTT service?  It's more expensive, but there's no reason that it 
wouldn't work.


Maybe part of the issue here seems to be that NTT isn't in the business 
of providing low speed transport services, e.g. anything less than 10G 
carrier.


Nick

Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

[Matthew Butt - Netwise]

Hi there Nick,

Apologies, but I'm not sure how else to explain this - price isnt the issue. It 
wouldn’t matter whether it was £25 or £250. It is the fact that NTTs stance is 
that they will only now sell BGP services directly to the end user/network.

My question is, is anyone else experiencing the same? If not, are you able to 
quote me please for a 10Mbps VLAN or dedicated port directly onto NTTs network 
(or transparently through your own) with BGP and a full table.

Kind regards,

Matthew Butt
MANAGING DIRECTOR | NETWISE

d: 020 3432 5060
t: 0845 430 9900
w: www.netwise.co.uk

This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended 
recipient(s)") to whom it has been addressed. It may contain information which 
is privileged and confidential within the meaning of applicable law. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible. 
Whilst every endeavour is taken to ensure that emails are free from viruses, no 
liability can be accepted for any damage arising from using this email. The 
views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the views held by 
Netwise Hosting Ltd. E&OE.

-Original Message-
From: Nick Hilliard  
Sent: 02 September 2019 14:51
To: Matthew Butt - Netwise 
Cc: Brandon Butterworth ; uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise



Matthew Butt - Netwise wrote on 02/09/2019 13:59:
> Thanks Brandon but that's the issue; NTT are saying that you couldn't 
> supply the service. Their stance is that they will only provide BGP 
> services now directly to the end user...our customer. My customer has 
> no interest in becoming a direct client of NTTs just for a single very 
> low traffic BGP service.
So the issue then is that the price is too high.  If so, this sounds like a 
normal business decision of trying to make a call between what's a requirement 
and what's a nice-to-have based on a direct cost.

Nick

Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

[Nick Hilliard]

Matthew Butt - Netwise wrote on 02/09/2019 13:59:

Thanks Brandon but that's the issue; NTT are saying that you couldn't
supply the service. Their stance is that they will only provide BGP
services now directly to the end user...our customer. My customer has
no interest in becoming a direct client of NTTs just for a single
very low traffic BGP service.
So the issue then is that the price is too high.  If so, this sounds 
like a normal business decision of trying to make a call between what's 
a requirement and what's a nice-to-have based on a direct cost.


Nick

Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

[Matthew Butt - Netwise]

Thanks but the requirement from our client is that this needs to be a native 
service from NTT. A VLAN, or dedicated port, with BGP and a full table with the 
next hop as NTT.

Kind regards,

Matthew Butt
MANAGING DIRECTOR | NETWISE

d: 020 3432 5060
t: 0845 430 9900
w: www.netwise.co.uk

This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended 
recipient(s)") to whom it has been addressed. It may contain information which 
is privileged and confidential within the meaning of applicable law. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible. 
Whilst every endeavour is taken to ensure that emails are free from viruses, no 
liability can be accepted for any damage arising from using this email. The 
views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the views held by 
Netwise Hosting Ltd. E&OE.

-Original Message-
From: Brandon Butterworth  
Sent: 02 September 2019 14:20
To: Matthew Butt - Netwise 
Cc: Joseph Waite ; uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

> NTT are saying that you couldn't supply the service

How could they stop us feeding a customer all the routes NTT send us? Or is 
there something I'm missing in the requirement?

brandon

Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

[Brandon Butterworth]

> NTT are saying that you couldn't supply the service

How could they stop us feeding a customer all the routes NTT
send us? Or is there something I'm missing in the requirement?

brandon

Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

[Matthew Butt - Netwise]

Thanks Brandon but that's the issue; NTT are saying that you couldn't supply 
the service. Their stance is that they will only provide BGP services now 
directly to the end user...our customer. My customer has no interest in 
becoming a direct client of NTTs just for a single very low traffic BGP service.

However if you believe otherwise - and that's not intended to come across as 
rude - then please do quote me for this service. The demarc would be TFM24 in 
THN.

Kind regards,

Matthew Butt
MANAGING DIRECTOR | NETWISE

d: 020 3432 5060
t: 0845 430 9900
w: www.netwise.co.uk

This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended 
recipient(s)") to whom it has been addressed. It may contain information which 
is privileged and confidential within the meaning of applicable law. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible. 
Whilst every endeavour is taken to ensure that emails are free from viruses, no 
liability can be accepted for any damage arising from using this email. The 
views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the views held by 
Netwise Hosting Ltd. E&OE.

-Original Message-
From: Brandon Butterworth  
Sent: 02 September 2019 12:01
To: Matthew Butt - Netwise 
Cc: Joseph Waite ; uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

On Mon Sep 02, 2019 at 08:53:12AM +, Matthew Butt - Netwise wrote:
> For the avoidance of doubt, we're happy to pay for the VLAN with BGP
> - we weren't expecting a freebie

So the question really is what would it be worth to NTT.

We have NTT so in theory we could sell it if they won't, as could many others 
here, I'm guessing no intermediary is desired hence pushing for NTT direct/via 
wholesale?

> I.e. Cogent charge £25 / month for the service

Bargain, they charge customers buying a load of transit 30

brandon

Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

[Brandon Butterworth]

On Mon Sep 02, 2019 at 08:53:12AM +, Matthew Butt - Netwise wrote:
> For the avoidance of doubt, we're happy to pay for the VLAN with BGP
> - we weren't expecting a freebie

So the question really is what would it be worth to NTT.

We have NTT so in theory we could sell it if they won't,
as could many others here, I'm guessing no intermediary
is desired hence pushing for NTT direct/via wholesale?

> I.e. Cogent charge £25 / month for the service

Bargain, they charge customers buying a load of
transit 30

brandon

Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

[Matthew Butt - Netwise]

Hi Guys,

For the avoidance of doubt, we're happy to pay for the VLAN with BGP - we 
weren't expecting a freebie. I.e. Cogent charge £25 / month for the service, 
Telia just charged us an admin/config fee etc.

Kind regards,

Matthew Butt
MANAGING DIRECTOR | NETWISE

d: 020 3432 5060
t: 0845 430 9900
w: www.netwise.co.uk

This message is intended only for the use of the person(s) ("the intended 
recipient(s)") to whom it has been addressed. It may contain information which 
is privileged and confidential within the meaning of applicable law. If you are 
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible. 
Whilst every endeavour is taken to ensure that emails are free from viruses, no 
liability can be accepted for any damage arising from using this email. The 
views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the views held by 
Netwise Hosting Ltd. E&OE.

-Original Message-
From: Brandon Butterworth  
Sent: 02 September 2019 06:14
To: Joseph Waite 
Cc: Matthew Butt - Netwise ; uk...@uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BGP VLAN from NTT - Netwise

On Sun Sep 01, 2019 at 11:35:46PM +0100, Joseph Waite wrote:
> Yes I am in the middle of this argument with NTT despite being 
> previously told by account manager that they don???t charge for 
> multiBGP setup, apparently according to their current management that 
> doesn???t mean they offer it

I wasn't clear what was being asked for, just multihop bgp without any transit 
or other servixe? I can see why they don't bother, I suspect running billing 
for just that would cost more than people would pay.

We have NTT transit but similarly it'd not be worth providing a service if it 
doesn't cover the cost of providing it.

regards
brandon