About 11,520,000,000 bit per hour.
Tom
I can't prove it, but I have a gut feeling that it's much higher than that.
The European academic networks claim to be supporting over 300 Mbps of
trans-Atlantic capacity. They claim that it is almost full-up.
(300 x 10^6) x 3600 ~= 10^12,
and even at only 10% average utilization, in ONE direction, that would be
roughly 10 x your estimate. And this is for the academic community only,
that is, no commercial links included in the estimate.
Again, just top of my head, no hard numbers.
--Steve G.
According to http://www.switch.ch/switch/lan/stat/linkusa.html , the
average data rates on our transatlantic links over the last year was
around 2260 kbps inbound (eastbound) and 1250 kbps outbound. The
links have been upgraded from 2 E1s to 4 E1s during that time.
We are one of the smaller European research networks - numbers from
e.g. the German WIN or the Scandinavian NORDUnet will be much higher.
There are many of these small links over the pond. I'd be interested
in whether (and if so: how) different providers manage to save costs
by sharing fast transcontinental lines among themselves.
There are also many E3/DS3s over the pond as well. Close to 20 or so from
what I know of...
-dorian
Simon Leinen <simon@limmat.switch.ch> writes:
There are many of these small links over the pond.
One of the reasons there are so many trans-oceanic links
between Europe and North America is that the cost of a
trans-oceanic full-circuit is almost infinitely cheaper
than inter-country circuits at PNO tariffs, thanks to
inexpensive U.S. half-circuits.
This is changing, largely due to E.U. telecomms liberalization.
I'd be interested
in whether (and if so: how) different providers manage to save costs
by sharing fast transcontinental lines among themselves.
Hm, I wonder if I can put enough value into answering this
question to have people forgive me for talking about my
(European) employer on an ostensibly North American
mailing list? 
Ebone is a customer-owned trans-continental backbone
provider that functions as a buyers' cooperative with
respect to inter-country (and in some cases intra-country)
capacity.
The not-marketing-person designed web page describing this
can be found at http://www.ebone.net/structure/objectives.html
This largely works in part because of the origins of Ebone
and the people who have worked with it since then, and
because Ebone focuses principally on large ISPs. That
leads to the assumption that customers aggregate enough
traffic that they will use all the capacity they pay for
at all times, which also leads to Ebone's no-overbooking
design, and consequently to Ebone's rather large
cost-based prices relative to its competitors which target
vastly different markets, or do massive loss-leading, or
do massive cross-subsidy, or all three.
One way of looking at the Ebone backbone is as a large TDM
network, much as one could build with ATM and CBR VCs,
only without the drawbacks of ATM or a big VC mesh (and
with the drawbacks of a complicated router-based network).
There are of course several other pan-European providers
such as Unisource's UBN, BT's CIP, UUNET, EUNET,
Compuserve, Global -1, and IBM Advantis, each of which
appears to function much like their counterparts or
analogues in the U.S.A. This, however, is not exactly
"line sharing" per se.
Finally, there may be people sharing lines bilaterally or
multilaterally among a small group of organizations. Some
alternative capacity providers are offering decent rates
on STM-1s among large cities; pulling VC3s or VC4s out of
an STM-1 and paying proportionately has some economic attraction,
particularly in cases where competition among providers
doing this isn't quite as cutthroat as it is in North
America.
A "how" diagram following a model other than
something closely mirroring the Ebone approacj
would be:
City A City B
provider 1-----\ /-------provider 1
> >
provider 2-----ADM===========ADM------provider 2
> >
provider 3-----/ \-------provider 3
Where the single-stroke lines represent 45Mbps or 34Mbps
circuits, whether through a local bandwidth provider (like
the PNO) or using cables or something across a
colocation facility like Telehouse, and the double-stroke
line represents an international STM-1 provided by a
bandwidth carrier.
This kind of thing tends to bring the
per-bit-per-second-per-month price down quite a bit
compared to three individual E3s or DS3s, assuming that
pricing is done relative to ordinary PNO tariffs.
There are cost and complexity issues for all largeish ISPs
to consider when choosing among various approaches for
moving traffic around, obviously, so there is certainly on
One True Approach to sharing really expensive bandwidth.
One observation, however, is that aggregating providers
appear to be popular choices when dealing with very expensive
lines or high levels of complexity, and unpopular choices when
they don't actually solve either problem (like when a
large ISP can't use much of its flat-rate paid-for
bandwidth because of massive overbooking or other design
issues, or when routing and other things break alot).
Finally, returning to the question of how many small pipes
there are and how much trans-oceanic bandwidth there is,
it is worth noting that a large number (but not most) of Ebone's
customers have their own circuits across the Atlantic
ocean, in spite of Ebone's pricing discounts on people who
use Ebone'e trans-atlantic capacity.
(Our trans-atlantic capacity is vastly less expensive than
our trans-European capacity, and across a full customer
pipe, a customer who is receiving U.S.-sourced traffic (or
sending U.S.-bound traffic) through Ebone typically uses enough
traffic that the cost incurred by meeting that customer's
traffic needs is less than the cost incurred if the pipe
was full of only European-to-European traffic).
In essence, the reason there are lots of trans-Atlantic
pipes is that in order to have sufficient capacity one
would have to connect with a relatively large pipe to a
trans-Atlantic traffic aggregator, which tends to be alot
more expensive than a smaller pipe within Europe and a
separate pipe across the ocean. This will probably remain
the case, price-wise, until intra-European bandwidth
prices fall to less than inter-continental prices, or to
the point where the cost of connecting to a provider (or
multiple providers) within Europe is perceived as less
than the cost of maintaining a more complicated network.
Sean.
You need to study some more (European) Internet history. Among
other things, you seem to overlook that the EUnet you know today, as
well as our infrastructure (in many ways similar to Ebone's), was a
result of political manouvering leading to us being kicked out of
Ebone at the time (6-7 years ago). Then the really interesting hard
work started, building from the ground while Ebone had its US half
circuits paid by the NSF, and Rick Adams lent us a big helping hand
during those years. (There is still much confusion caused by the
similar names of the two companies, but that's a different story.)
As you are probably aware, we have been on very friendly terms with
Ebone for several years now.
Per Gregers Bilse wrote:
(There is still much confusion caused by the
similar names of the two companies, but that's a different story.)
Yep, there were times when EUnet was EUUG's network, and UUNET
(Communications, not Technology) was USENIX's network.
Nowadays USENIX has Windows NT seminars. Resistance is futile :]
--vadim
Oh, but it still is, according to this relic:
jotun.EU.net% inic 134.222
European Unix Users Group (NET-EUNET-X25)
Kruislaan 413
NL-1098 SJ Amsterdam
NETHERLANDS
Netname: EUNET-X25
Netnumber: 134.222.0.0
We will leave this untouched for future generations to wonder about,
especially the "X25" designation.-)
Per Gregers Bilse <pgb@EU.net> writes:
You need to study some more (European) Internet history.
I certainly accept that, so with respect to your assertion
that EUnet was "kicked out" of Ebone 6-7 years ago I
decided to check on three obvious primary sources,
viz. Frode, Kees Neggers and Glenn Kowack. The first
choice was obviously the easiest.
Frode (unsurprisingly) was surprised at your version of
history. I was too, since it varied with what I remember
seeing at the time (remember I have some UUNET history too
). He also said that Ebone would be very happy to
welcome EUnet back into the fold if the departure was due
to some misunderstanding several years ago.
I shall ask the other two at leisure today or tomorrow in email.
BTW, since there are other people reading this who would
make good primary sources, I welcome any historical
retrospectives by private email.
Among other things, you seem to overlook
Which other things, out of curiosity? Admittedly I'm
crippled by having a viewpoint firmly fixed in North
America for the past few years, and I'm certainly open to
different points of view with respect to the history of
European Internetworking.
while Ebone had its US half circuits paid by the NSF,
and Rick Adams lent us a big helping hand during those
years.
Wow, this is a rat's nest. Um, my ICM memories are
that in the first place Ebone was initially principally an
academic consortium, but that as commercial traffic began
appearing, NSF funding began disappearing. I believe
(Steve Goldstein can correct me if I'm wrong) that Ebone
generally acquired capacity on fractions of lines the NSF
did not pay for.
There is some fuzziness about the RENATER lines, and one
could take several readings on the NORDUNET capacity over
the past couple of years, but in any event, I think you
will find that any indirect subsidy really didn't amount to all
that much (Dr Goldstein's pockets are only so deep) and
probably did go to the benefit of the NSF's community of
interest, and in particular during the period when Ebone
was still a consortium rather than the hybrid
Association/Incorporation in place now.
There is no question that Rick was a pioneer in investing
in the international growth of the commercial Internet,
and that alot of the proliferation of the Internet in
Europe is due in some measure to him.
As you are probably aware, we have been on very friendly terms with
Ebone for several years now.
Yup, EUnet is cool.
Sean.
I certainly accept that, so with respect to your assertion
that EUnet was "kicked out" of Ebone 6-7 years ago I
decided to check on three obvious primary sources,
viz. Frode, Kees Neggers and Glenn Kowack. The first
choice was obviously the easiest.Frode (unsurprisingly) was surprised at your version of
history. I was too, since it varied with what I remember
This was a somewhat older Ebone, not the Ebone that we became
friendly with (again). Our own infrastructure was the result of our
presence being in conflict with public funding and thus AUP;
funding/AUP which was introduced in coup-like fashion, without prior
discussion or agreement -- simply "the following will happen, there
is no room for you". In the end things didn't materialize in the
form they were introduced, but we had no choice at the time except to
build our own. You will of course always find different perceptions
of the same events, but you should keep in mind that not everything
was said in public, and there will thus be a natural diversity of
opinion. If you think rationally, why didn't we stay with Ebone?
Warm, cosy, cooperative -- why would anybody break away voluntarily?
welcome EUnet back into the fold if the departure was due
to some misunderstanding several years ago.
It was no misunderstanding, it was fairly run-of-the-mill power
politics; but Frode wasn't part of it. And, of course, if Ebone
wants to be part of EUnet, we can probably work something out.
> Among other things, you seem to overlook
Which other things, out of curiosity? Admittedly I'm
Perhaps the most interesting part is that EUnet predates Ebone by
several years (one can take a hint from AS numbers, we are 286, Ebone
is 1755). Your somewhat glorifying description of Ebone and the
lumping of everybody else belies the fact that EUnet was the original
cooperative model, with all members contributing to the costs, and
lines shared as per your description of Ebone. The model was thus
"commercial" from the start, with no direct public funding, and with
a very high degree of independence for the members (or customers, or
whatever one should call them). Parts of that model still exist
today, with the national operating companies (most of which are fully
owned by EUnet International Ltd) retaining a fair degree of autonomy,
and EUnet CS BV not seeking to make a profit (this is done in the
operating companies).
> while Ebone had its US half circuits paid by the NSF,
> and Rick Adams lent us a big helping hand during those
> years.Wow, this is a rat's nest.
And it wasn't nice to be the innocent cheese.
that in the first place Ebone was initially principally an
academic consortium, but that as commercial traffic began
It was all R&D'ish at the time, EUnet too (heck, we were the first,
traceable back to 1982). The initial commercial interests came out of
the UNIX User Groups, which naturally contained a high proportion of
IT companies and professionals (my involvement with EUnet started by
me being a slightly disgruntled UUG member and EUnet customer), in
addition to the more traditional members (computer science departments,
labs, institutes, etc).
the past couple of years, but in any event, I think you
will find that any indirect subsidy really didn't amount to all
I didn't exactly imply that (it could be a hot discussion topic,
though), rather that we (and our members/customers) found ourselves
out pretty cold due to not being a (politically correct) national
research network. Those networks actually appeared much later than
the EUnet group(s), and in a number of countries used combinations of
public money and political pressure to usurp our customer base, which
at the time was largely non-commercial (in the sense that they
weren't profit-making companies; they were, however, commercial
customers in the sense that they paid themselves for the resources
they used, a principle which has been re-introduced in many places
over the past few years). But all of this is obviously history by
now.
Per Gregers Bilse <bilse@EU.net> writes:
Well, other people's memories vary somewhat I guess.
I'll ask you your version of things over beer at the next
RIPE meeting.
If you think rationally, why didn't we stay with Ebone?
Warm, cosy, cooperative -- why would anybody break away voluntarily?
Expensive. --
(Well, that's been the recent reason, though there are
funding politics inolved in many cases of that too, I guess)
And, of course, if Ebone
wants to be part of EUnet, we can probably work something out.
Wouldn't this mean changing your business model?
Your somewhat glorifying description of Ebone and the
lumping of everybody else belies
Any implication of "guilt by association" was completely
unintentional. Also, any implication that EUNET is
somehow less than Ebone was also unintentional. As I
said, EUNET is cool.
I didn't exactly imply that (it could be a hot discussion topic,
though),
That can be the second or third round of beer.
Sean.