> Just how much free time do you have? :)
1 minute to google the capacity of a 747-400F.
1 minute to google the dimensions and weight of an lto-4 cartridge.
1 minute to punch the numbers into bc(1).
--lyndon
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 09:42:55PM -0500, Scott Morris wrote:
> On 12/4/10 5:56 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > I recently calculated the capacity of a 747F full of LTO-4 tapes; it's
> > about 8.7 exabytes. I *think* it's within weight and balance for the
> > airframe.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -- jra
> >
>
On 12/4/10 5:56 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> I recently calculated the capacity of a 747F full of LTO-4 tapes; it's
> about 8.7 exabytes. I *think* it's within weight and balance for the
> airframe.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
>
Just how much free time do you have? :)
Scott
- Original Message -
> Level 3 is functioning not only as a transport provider for smaller
> content providers, but also as an aggregated negotiation service,
> though in this case the content provider, Netflix, is big enough to
> matter. (Some years ago, when they were DVDs by mail only, i
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> - Ratio needs to be dropped from all peering policies. It made sense
> back when the traffic was two people e-mailing each other. It was
> a measure of "equal value". However the net has evolved. In the
> face of streaming audio and vide
mikea wrote:
Faster and doesn't require infrastructure (other than possibly electrical
power). Those hams were throttled _way_ back, too, to about 21 words per
minute; I frequently hear Morse at speeds up to about 50 wpm in the ham
bands.
In '56 ( I was 13 yrs old...got my General at 11), I han
In a message written on Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 11:39:32AM -0500, Christopher
Morrow wrote:
> right, that was the point(s) I was trying to make... sadly I didn't
> make them I guess.
Well, I wasn't 100% sure, so best to confirm.
But it all goes to the heart of Network Neutrality. It's easy to set
> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:47:44 -0500
> From: William Herrin
> Subject: Re: The scale of streaming video on the Internet.
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
(...)
> But there's a third mechanism worth considering as well: the caching
> proxy.
IMHO it is a wa
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 11:08:21AM -0500, Christopher
> Morrow wrote:
>> the above is essentially what Akamai (and likely other CDN products)
>> built/build... from what I understand (purely from the threads here)
>> Akam
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:47 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Perhaps the eyeball networks should build, standardize and deploy a
>> content caching system so that the popular Netflix streams (and the
>> live broadcast streams) can usually
On Dec 3, 2010, at 9:16 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
> On 02/12/10 20:21, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> Comcast has around ~15 million high speed Internet subscribers (based on
>> year old data, I'm sure it is higher), which means at peak usage around
>> 0.3% of all Comcast high speed users would be watching.
In a message written on Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 11:08:21AM -0500, Christopher
Morrow wrote:
> the above is essentially what Akamai (and likely other CDN products)
> built/build... from what I understand (purely from the threads here)
> Akamai lost out on the traffic-sales for NetFlix to L3's CDN. Com
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:47 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> If the instant problem is that the character of eyeball-level Internet
> service has shifted to include a major component of data which is more
> or less broadcast in nature (some with time shifting, some without).
> There's a purely techni
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> Sunday Night Football at the top last week, with 7.1% of US homes
>> watching. That's over 23 times as many folks watching as the 0.3% in
>> our previous math! Ok, 23 times 150Gbps.
>>
>> 3.4
On 12/3/2010 8:16 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
On 02/12/10 20:21, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Comcast has around ~15 million high speed Internet subscribers (based on
year old data, I'm sure it is higher), which means at peak usage around
0.3% of all Comcast high speed users would be watching.
That's an in
- Original Message -
> From: "Paul Ferguson"
>
> >>> As to the emergency broadcast system, yeah, that's going to lose.
> >>
> >> Didn't we already replace that with twitter?
> >
> > quake/tsunami warnings flow via email rather quickly.
>
> Old skool.
>
> Twitter is much faster:
>
> http
On 02/12/10 20:21, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Comcast has around ~15 million high speed Internet subscribers (based on
year old data, I'm sure it is higher), which means at peak usage around
0.3% of all Comcast high speed users would be watching.
That's an interesting number, but let's run back the oth
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 06:29:54PM -1000, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
> >Old skool.
> >
> >Twitter is much faster:
> >
> >http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/government-disaster-advisors-twitter-ha
> >cked-used-to-send-tsunami-warning/408447
>
> But morse
Unless there is robust support for it in home nat/CPE it is dead. Same for
these ipv6 challenges at the edge. I am also not aware of any major networks
that currently have multicast on their backbone also deploying v6mcast.
Corrections to that here or privately welcome.
Sent from my iThing
On
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Dec 2, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
The various IPv6 wikis could use a good sprinkling of multicast howtos.
True. Want to help with that ?
Working on it...
Antonio Querubin
808-545-5282 x3003
e-mail/xmpp: t...@lava.net
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Old skool.
Twitter is much faster:
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/government-disaster-advisors-twitter-ha
cked-used-to-send-tsunami-warning/408447
But morse code is still faster :)
http://www.google.com/search?q=morse+code+beats+texting&ie=utf-8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 12/2/10 4:56 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> ...
>>> As to the emergency broadcast system, yeah, that's going to lose.
>>
>> Didn't we alread
On 12/2/10 4:56 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> ...
>> As to the emergency broadcast system, yeah, that's going to lose.
>
> Didn't we already replace that with twitter?
quake/tsunami warnings flow via email rather quickly.
> Matt
>
On Dec 2, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Jack Bates wrote:
>
>> I sure as hell need to read up again. I keep getting sidetracked with other
>> things. Perhaps after I wrap up the IPv6 rollout, I can get back to
>> Multicast support. I believe most of my NSPs su
On Dec 2, 2010, at 5:31 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
>> Yes, Tony, but they can't *count the connected users that way*, you see.
>
> There are various ways to do that. Eg. Windows Media Server can log
> multicast Windows Media Clients.
>
>> For my pa
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
...
> As to the emergency broadcast system, yeah, that's going to lose.
Didn't we already replace that with twitter?
Matt
I have TWC in NYC. I see now I can restart most of the shows I watch. How is
this done?
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Alex Rubenstein [mailto:a...@corp.nac.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:57 PM
To: Jay Ashworth; NANOG
Subject: RE: The scale of streaming video on the
On Dec 2, 2010, at 2:01 PM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Antonio Querubin wrote:
>
>>> -entire- end to end IP network, it will be significantly broken significant
>>> amounts of the time.
>>
>> Which points to the need for service providers to deploy robust multicast
>> routin
On Dec 2, 2010, at 2:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Antonio Querubin"
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> Oh: and all the extra servers and switches necessary to set that up?
>>
>>> *Way* more power than the equivalent transmitters and TV sets
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Jack Bates wrote:
I sure as hell need to read up again. I keep getting sidetracked with other
things. Perhaps after I wrap up the IPv6 rollout, I can get back to Multicast
support. I believe most of my NSPs support it, I just never have time to iron
out the details to a lev
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Yes, Tony, but they can't *count the connected users that way*, you see.
There are various ways to do that. Eg. Windows Media Server can log
multicast Windows Media Clients.
For my part, as someone who used to run a small edge network, what I wonder
i
On 12/2/2010 4:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Yes, Tony, but they can't *count the connected users that way*, you see.
Actually, given content protection, I highly expect any device receiving
multicast video to also have a session open to handle various things,
possibly even getting keys for dec
- Original Message -
> From: "Antonio Querubin"
>
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > Oh: and all the extra servers and switches necessary to set that up?
>
> > *Way* more power than the equivalent transmitters and TV sets. Even
> > if you add in the cable headends, I suspect.
>
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Antonio Querubin wrote:
-entire- end to end IP network, it will be significantly broken significant
amounts of the time.
Which points to the need for service providers to deploy robust multicast
routing.
No doubt - it also points to multicast itself needing a bit more sa
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Jack Bates wrote:
What would be really awesome (unless I've missed it) is Internet access to
the emergency broadcast system and local weather services; all easily handled
with multicast.
NWS transmits their NOAAPORT data as a multicast stream from geostationary
satellites
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, david raistrick wrote:
If you, the multicast broadcaster, dont have extensive control of the
-entire- end to end IP network, it will be significantly broken significant
amounts of the time.
...david (former member of a team of engineers who built and maintained a
220,000
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Oh: and all the extra servers and switches necessary to set that up?
*Way* more power than the equivalent transmitters and TV sets. Even if
you add in the cable headends, I suspect.
Have you heard of multicast? :)
Antonio Querubin
808-545-5282 x3003
On 12/2/2010 3:23 PM, david raistrick wrote:
Have you ever actually been involved with really large scale multicast
implementations? I take it that's a no.
Nope. I prefer small scale. :)
The -only- way that would work internet wide, and it defeats the
purpose, is if your client side created
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Jack Bates wrote:
Watch the game live multicast. Missed the game? Watch it on demand. As things
progress, we'll probably see more edge content delivery systems (like Akamai)
Have you ever actually been involved with really large scale multicast
implementations? I take it
On 12/2/2010 2:38 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 12/2/10 12:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You are assuming the absence of any of the following optimizations:
1. Multicast
Multicast is great for simulating old school broadcasting, but I don't
see how it can apply to Netflix/Amazon style demand s
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 03:57:29PM -0500, Alex Rubenstein said:
>Transmitters and TV sets require that everyone watch what is being
transmitted. People (myself included) don't like, or don't want this method
anymore. I want to watch what I want, when I want to.
>
>This is the new age of med
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 12/2/10 12:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> You are assuming the absence of any of the following optimizations:
>>
>> 1. Multicast
>
> Multicast is great for simulating old school broadcasting, but I don't
> see how it can apply to Netflix/A
On Dec 2, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Leo Bicknell"
>> [...]
>> That's an interesting number, but let's run back the other way.
>> Consider what happens if folks cut the cord, and watch Internet
>> only TV. I went and found some TV ratings:
>>
> *Way* more power than the equivalent transmitters and TV sets. Even if
> you add in the cable headends, I suspect.
Yeah, but...
This is really not comparable.
Transmitters and TV sets require that everyone watch what is being transmitted.
People (myself included) don't like, or don't want th
- Original Message -
> From: "Leo Bicknell"
>[...]
> That's an interesting number, but let's run back the other way.
> Consider what happens if folks cut the cord, and watch Internet
> only TV. I went and found some TV ratings:
>
> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/11/30/tv-ratings-b
On 12/2/10 12:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> You are assuming the absence of any of the following optimizations:
>
> 1.Multicast
Multicast is great for simulating old school broadcasting, but I don't
see how it can apply to Netflix/Amazon style demand streaming where
everyone can potentially wat
Sunday Night Football at the top last week, with 7.1% of US homes
watching. That's over 23 times as many folks watching as the 0.3% in
our previous math! Ok, 23 times 150Gbps.
3.45Tb/s.
Yowzer. That's a lot of data. 345 10GE ports for a SINGLE TV show.
But that's 7.1% of homes, so scale u
You are assuming the absence of any of the following optimizations:
1. Multicast
2. Overlay networks using P2P services (get parts of your stream
from some of your neighbors).
These are not entirely safe assumptions.
Owen
On Dec 2, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>
48 matches
Mail list logo
