Or I don't. Which is not completely impossible.
In this piece:
http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/netflix-puts-even-more-strain-on-the-internet-1200480561/
they suggest that Akamai and other ISP-side caching is either not
affecting these numbers and their pertinence to the "backbone" at all,
or not much.
Did they miss something? or did I?
Cheers,
-- jra
This is from a Sandvine press release. Sandvine measures traffic at the
last mile, so it doesn't really know whether a Netflix stream is coming
from a local caching server within the carrier's LAN, from a caching
server that is peering with the carrier, or via the real internet.
In the case of a large ISP with a Netflix cache server accessible
locally, (either in-house, or via peering at a local carrier hotel), the
traffic doesn't really travel on the internet.
But for smaller ISPs, the traffic will travel on the internet between
the nearest cache server and their facilities.
Because of caching, the load on the actual internet won't increase as
much as the amoount streamed onto last mile infrastructure.
Netflix Video Puts Even More Strain on the Internet
they suggest that Akamai and other ISP-side caching is either not
affecting these numbers and their pertinence to the "backbone" at all,
or not much.This is from a Sandvine press release. Sandvine measures traffic at the
last mile, so it doesn't really know whether a Netflix stream is coming
from a local caching server within the carrier's LAN, from a caching
server that is peering with the carrier, or via the real internet.
can't the routing data on the network tell them some of this? or even
routing data collected from like 'routeviews'? they don't even really
need 'live' data as much as daily snapshots to say: "Yea, that network
is 3 as-hops away -- it's across the "backbone"".
sounds like lazy research...
In the case of a large ISP with a Netflix cache server accessible
locally, (either in-house, or via peering at a local carrier hotel), the
traffic doesn't really travel on the internet.
and that fact ought to be visible in the local routing system and/or
global system.
But for smaller ISPs, the traffic will travel on the internet between
the nearest cache server and their facilities.Because of caching, the load on the actual internet won't increase as
much as the amoount streamed onto last mile infrastructure.
one hopes. (providing cache-hit is above a few percent)
-chris
I don't see the word "backbone" in there, other than in the comments.
Your DSL line is part of the Internet, and doing more traffic puts more "strain" (FSVO "strain") on that link, even if the server is colocated with the cable head end.
So I don't see the problem here. But then, maybe I'm the one who is confused? 
On 13-05-14 13:06, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Netflix Video Puts Even More Strain on the Internet
they suggest that Akamai and other ISP-side caching is either not
affecting these numbers and their pertinence to the "backbone" at all,
or not much.This is from a Sandvine press release. Sandvine measures traffic at the
last mile, so it doesn't really know whether a Netflix stream is coming
from a local caching server within the carrier's LAN, from a caching
server that is peering with the carrier, or via the real internet.In the case of a large ISP with a Netflix cache server accessible
locally, (either in-house, or via peering at a local carrier hotel), the
traffic doesn't really travel on the internet.
Since when is peering not part of the Internet? Since when is even on-net caches not part of the Internet?
I always thought if I am on the Internet, anything I ping is "on the Internet". (I am intentionally ignoring things like split tunnel VPN nodes.)
Perhaps you think of the "Internet" as the "tier ones" or something?
But for smaller ISPs, the traffic will travel on the internet between
the nearest cache server and their facilities.
I guess you assume smaller ISPs don't peer? Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you, 100s if not 1000s of times.
Still confused about this whole notion, though. Perhaps you can clarify?
Because of caching, the load on the actual internet won't increase as
much as the amoount streamed onto last mile infrastructure.
Uh....
I give up.
Yes, one car argue that an device with an IP address routable from the
internet is part of the internet.
But when traffic from a cahe server flows directly into an ISP's
intranet to end users, it doesn't really make use of the "Internet" nor
does it cost the ISP transit capacity.
Compare this to a small ISP in a city where there are no cache servers.
Reaching netfix involves using paid transit to reach the nearest point
where Netflix has a cache server. So traffic truly travels on the internet.
On 13-05-14 20:55, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Since when is peering not part of the Internet?
Yes, one car argue that an device with an IP address routable from the
internet is part of the internet.
Can argue? How would you define the Internet?
But when traffic from a cahe server flows directly into an ISP's
intranet to end users, it doesn't really make use of the "Internet" nor
does it cost the ISP transit capacity.
Transit capacity != "Internet".
Plus you said even peering wasn't the Internet.
Compare this to a small ISP in a city where there are no cache servers.
Reaching netfix involves using paid transit to reach the nearest point
where Netflix has a cache server. So traffic truly travels on the internet.
"Truly"? You have interesting definitions.
I think you are trying to say "small ISPs have to pay to access $CONTENT, big ones do not". This is objectively false-to-fact.
If you are trying to say scale makes some things easier, then I'm sure most people would agree. But trying to define the Internet as transit capacity, or saying small ISPs can't peer, or anything of the sort is silly.
But when traffic from a cahe server flows directly into an ISP's intranet
to end users, it doesn't really make use of the "Internet" nor does it cost
the ISP transit capacity.
Compare this to a small ISP in a city where there are no cache servers.
Reaching netfix involves using paid transit to reach the nearest point
where Netflix has a cache server. So traffic truly travels on the internet.
We're a small ISP and we reach lot of content via peering just fine. Lot of
these contents that you speak of (Netflix, Akamai, et al) have open peering
policies and are present in more exchange points than anybody else.
james
So it's only on the Internet if it uses a provider's transit capacity?
So if ISP1 and ISP2 are customers of ISP3 (and ISP3 is the only
provider-to-provider connection for ISP1 and ISP2), then traffic
between a customer of ISP1 and a customer of ISP2 is on the "Internet"?
What if ISP1 and ISP2 then setup a private peering connection? Is
traffic between ISP1 and ISP2 still on "the Internet", or is that
reserved for traffic over paid transit?
And if that's still "on the Internet", what happens if ISP1 then buys
IPS2? Does the traffic between them cease to be "on the Internet" now
that it's the same company?
And, if you define "on the Internet" to mean "goes over paid transit",
then the only traffic that is on the Internet is traffic to ISPs who
have paid transit. Traffic between end customers of two Tier 1
providers (defined as "providers who don't pay for any transit" for the
purposes of this message) would never be "on the Internet"?
(I assume "transit", if that's your threshold, is "transit paid for by
a provider". End user connections are essentially paid transit, even
though it's not typically called that, especially at the lower end.)
The point is: I don't think you definition works. Could post exactly
what your definition of "on the Internet" is (as opposed to just
enumerating examples of things you think are on the internet and things
you think are not on the Internet)?
-- Brett
Not all ISPs are fortunate enough to be in a town where there is an
active exchange with Netflix/Akamai/Google presence.
For instance, Montr�al just recently oopened a peering exchange. While
this will eventually allow local ISPs to peer with the big content
providers, until this happens, small ISPs have to get that content via
paid transit links.
Toronto has "local" content available via peering so smaller ISPs can
benefit from that. But not every city has that chance.
Netflix's policy does require a minimum amount of traffic before an ISP
can deploy an Open Connect appliance. So smaller ISPs are at a
disadvantage if they are located in a city without CDN presence.
We're a small ISP and we reach lot of content via peering just fine. Lot of
these contents that you speak of (Netflix, Akamai, et al) have open peering
policies and are present in more exchange points than anybody else.Not all ISPs are fortunate enough to be in a town where there is an
active exchange with Netflix/Akamai/Google presence.For instance, Montréal just recently oopened a peering exchange. While
this will eventually allow local ISPs to peer with the big content
providers, until this happens, small ISPs have to get that content via
paid transit links.
or via some cooperative arrangement with another IX participant, no?
I made the statement in a context of "the internet is crumbling under
the Netflix load". There have been many media reports over the years of
the internet unable to cope with the explosion of traffic.
When a content provider delivers content at an ISP's doorstep, it
basically bypasses "the internet" (the big cloud).
I am fully aware that it is still technically the internet. But the load
is not on "the internet" but rathers localised to particular individual
networks within the internet.
The point here is that the internet (as a whole) has adapted to the
likes of Netflix and Youtube who are able to deliver huge amounts of
data without "the internet" crumbling.
So it's only on the Internet if it uses a provider's transit capacity?
I made the statement in a context of "the internet is crumbling under
the Netflix load". There have been many media reports over the years of
is it? it seems ok so far...
the internet unable to cope with the explosion of traffic.
'internet doom, news at 11' ? i don't think there's as much of a
problem as news folk want us all to believe. I also bet that as
problems arise, folk route around them with better/closer/cheaper
peering, no?
AS1312 isn't particularly large (2 /16s, 30K students, 8K fac/staff), and
Akamai was more than willing to drop a cache unit in our machine room.
And Google was happy to meet us at the upstream end of our link to
the outside world - but I half-suspect that was just because we make their
IPv6 stats look good
Not all ISPs are fortunate enough to be in a town where there is an active
exchange with Netflix/Akamai/Google presence.
For instance, Montréal just recently oopened a peering exchange. While
this will eventually allow local ISPs to peer with
the big content providers, until this happens, small ISPs have to get that
content via paid transit links.
lolwut? Montreal isn't a small town, just not developed on peering side.
What's the cost of upgrading your IP transit in Montreal or getting a 10G
wave to Toronto for peering w/ content nowadays? Not very much.
james
All of this is leading me to the following conclusion:
If we, as network engineers can't agree on the nature and definition of the internet,
how can we possibly expect the media to understand it?
Owen
When someone cuts a cable in the meditarenean, the media doesn't say
"the internet has crawled to a snail's pace", it says "internet
connections in the middle east are very slow".
If DNS servers at Comcast fail, one doesn't say "the internet has
suffered a failure".
Generally , if one uses the expression "the internet", it would
generally mean the generic term which encompasses the whole internet.
So you can state "Syria is disconnected from the internet".
If root servers went down around the world, then one could state that
"the internet has suffered a failure".
Maybe we should try poetry,
Human, you tied the soul,
You will not behold joy if you break down that wall,
So why the leaving beam is calling you,
Brick by brick, slowly one by one, ...
hoping to at least catch a glimpse of ray.
Translated from:
Kingmaker
(Life ... in a nest of copper)
By: Rikin
adam
To be clear - the purpose of this policy is to ensure that people who
deploy appliances use them in the best way possible for their network.
Anything less than the minimum amount of traffic and the appliance uses
more bandwidth to fill than serve and you end up in a race of diminishing
returns. We're always happy to try to find the best solution for any
network, even those too small for an OCA.
For more info see http://openconnect.netflix.com
Regards,
-Dave