I remember “ip go faster” when you first posted it back in 1998. It was hilarious, I literally “LOL”ed. However, I did not envy you your job with that short notice. (But I did envy you all the people who were willing to help on such short notice.) I am still impressed at what you were able to pull together in just a few days. Major Kudos.
Things will probably be easier this time. The Internet has evolved ways of dealing with exactly this problem. (Avi used to call it “slash-dot insurance”, but the idea is the same.) Specifically:
Yep, it will be interesting to see where the chokepoints are tommorrow.
In 1998, the bandwidth pipes never filled up. The chokepoint was in the TCP and Web stacks. Eventually the Associated Press got a copy of the Starr Report on a CD from a congressional staffer. The press intern running down the street holding a CD was faster than 1998 internet
We were also lucky in 1998, no one had thought of DDOS yet.
And we may still see the web stack being the ultimate cause of the delay.
Parkinson's law always comes to the rescue:-)
More faster and efficient processing architecture, Hyper transport buses, amd-64 Branch prediction.
Massively faster storage subsystems and disk arrays, SSD slab caching for hypervisors
And some dude with a AJAX framework to serve a PDF bringging the whole thing to a a screeching halt
Agreed. But the scale of a 400 page document with global interest? Should
be highly cached with a good ratio of served to pull bits. I'm willing to
bet you a beer its just another day on the Internet. However, I could be
wrong. Hope to see you in DC to collect! I already know Brett is in.
Agreed, I remember the biggest problem when the Starr Report was released was that our dial-up PoPs had all lines busy. It was a different Internet then.
If you want NANOG to devolve into a morass of political claptrap, keep posting comments like that. Personally, I want NANOG to remain a useful technical resource, and leave the partisan crap to Facebook and its ilk.
It does, and some of the use cases for it are quite compelling. However,
there is often deep mistrust associated with it: years of propaganda from
the copyright lobby have fostered the impression that it is inherently
malicious. That can be very difficult to overcome: it's in the
same class of mythos as "all ICMP traffic is bad", and well, lots of
us have spent lots of time over lots of years trying to get past that one.
Getting P2P accepted looks like a much bigger hill to climb.
Anne P. Mitchell,
Attorney at Law
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center
California Bar Association
Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Colorado Cyber Committee
Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop