150 posts • joined 18 Aug 2008
Beware of heresies
What's needed is a network that's designed to deal with a mix of voice, video, other real-time apps and some flavors of data. It should be able to offer 'permanent' paths for defined endpoints like Ethernet pseudo-wires or VPNs, and temporary paths for things like bulk data transfers. It should offer some form of congestion control and management and be dynamically reconfigurable. To some, this will sound like SDN. To others, perhaps older and more cynical, ATM. The Internet. Re-inventing the wheel since at least 1876..
Useful end of the slippery slope
"..its warning emails will now include a link to purchase a copy of the illegally downloaded content."
This could be handy. So if I download a bit of Game of Thrones, will the link let me buy a legal DVD/Blu-ray now-ish? Like not having to wait until Feb 2015?
Re: Another money earning scam
Confused. Press release claiming a glorious day for the techno-scot. But nic.scot appears to be sitting in.. Bulgaria?
.alba was blocked by Albania for passing off and to avoid confusion.
.sco forked to .ibm and .nov and may still be in dispute resolution.
.wee and .eck are available from alternative registrars. Premiums apply to golden registrations.
.midge is reserved for the Scottish Air Force.
According to ISO 3166-2:GB it should be .sct anyway.
Re: domestic power....
"It would seem that once there is a critical mass of chargers (for transit) and sinks (for domestics), the grid will have a reserve capacity not unlike a big dam.."
I think these are two of the biggest challenges (aside from cost). Teslas's rolling out it's Superchargers which cut filling times to more realistic levels, but not petrol/diesel convenience. Plus the challenges of managing high current charging and battery life. Potential problem there is they'll only be for Tesla's vehicles at present. Fair play to Musk for getting on and doing it but incompatible charging infrastructure will increase cost and reduce take up.
For domestic, the pitch seems to be buy a Tesla and a SolarCity solar charger/storage system using Tesla batteries. That's fine if the panels charge the store batteries ready to charge your car when you get home in the evening. If not, then demand isn't going to match solar profiles, so there'll probably be an increased night-time demand.
Google has long been a champion of net neutrality and the concept that all content is created equal. There should be no preferential treatment because that may lead to a 2-tiered 'net where rich companies can squeeze out the smaller operators. Google has spent years (and millions) lobbying for these rights, and creating a 2-tiered royalty system for YT is just demonstrating how sincerely it holds these views.
Re: Seems they are playing the old school definition of a "computer"
What do you get if you multiply six by nine?
"Oh good, so it's gonna be just <pop tartlet du jour> and <ageing rock "icon"> from now on."
And endless Mars and Twix ads.. It's the Interwebz. Your stuff is free so we'll make money from it!
Re: Mathematician vs. a "Real" Scientist...
I'm confused. Which one is meant to be the "actual climate scientist"? One is Holdren, who's thesis was titled-
COLLISIONLESS STABILITY OF AN INHOMOGENEOUS, CONFINED, PLANAR PLASMA
who drifted from physics to poltics with the odd collision along the way. Notably the infamous Simon-Erlich wager which Holdren advised Erlich about. And lost. Holdren also co-authored a book with Erlich which contained some radical ideas about overpopulation. The other is Dr Screen, who..
"...leads a three-year project entitled “Arctic Climate Change and its Mid-latitude Impacts”, in collaboration with the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre and the US National Center for Atmospheric Research."
One's a specialist, the other's a politician and bureaucrat. But given climate science is largely about the numerical analysis of weather and climate data, who would you think more likely to produce credible results, the mathmatician or the politician?
"If everyone used ITSO on the underground, gate-lines would suddenly have enormous queues behind them and stations would close due to overcrowding."
Alternatively we could do as the Czech's do and have a carrot and stick system. Buy a card, activate it, walk freely onto the underground. Stick comes in if you get caught fare dodging, which means they have more *people* on the network keeping an eye on things and fewer machines.
Of course this means there are fewer people getting paid to run those machines, skim transaction charges or just analyze gigabytes of passenger information to work out where bottlenecks may exist. Or just people who are x hrs away from home, where the next Amazon ticket office conversion should be. Or correlating data from wifi & phone info to make targetted mailing lists. Your phone + person who is not your wife's phone take a cab to the west end, then to a hotel so wife gets added to mailing lists for lawyers and PIs. The possibilities are endless, especially when 'cost overruns' (this is goverment IT) mean 'exciting data sharing opportunities' are explored.
Re: Somewhat deceitful if not downright false advertising
"Advert is all about voice commands and ends with "XBoxOne- Now £349" ...which would be the kinectless version ...and you need Kinect for voice commands."
I blame marketing. If you want to gauge audience participation, what better way than to make sure your analytics collector is enabled and capable of sending audio/video at the start of an ad. Or finding out which channels Xbone owners prefer. As MS put it when they flogged Atlas to Facepalm-
"Perhaps more important than anything, five-plus years ago we did not have the stable of mature owned & operated media/screen assets with global reach that we now have, including: Xbox/Kinect, Skype, Bing, Windows Phone, a new and improved MSN that delivers premium ad experiences, and last but certainly not least, Windows 8 applications.
Our vision has evolved. We want to stay laser focused on building devices and services that we believe will represent the advertising platforms of the future."
Re: Reg's standard for this?
"I think you'll find 40Gbps is incredibly popular among those who need it. The reason you may not have seen much of it is that very few people do need it."
I work on the supply side and haven't seen a request for 40G in a long time. That's on the WAN rather than LAN though. Reason I'm sceptical is historical. 40G was ok for older systems that worked on Nx10G wavelengths, newer systems use Nx25G which is one of the reasons why 100G is standardising around 100GBase-xR4. On the line-side flexible grids (ITU-T G.694) using PM-QPSK are running 500Gbps and 9Tbps+ on a single pair. So generally 40G isn't a convenient or efficient fit with modern muxes. 400G may work as in interim 4x100 solution but again less efficient it you end up wasting 100G on a line card. 1Tbps is possible now with 2xOSCs between compatible telcos, which generally means another DTN-X user. More info here-
Re: Reg's standard for this?
"The company says that this bandwidth is sufficient for 50,000 simultaneous high definition Netflix video streams."
So 400Gbps = 50KNvs. Which may not be a lot depending on how many of Netflix's 44m subscribers stream concurrently. I suspect industry may skip 400Gbps as they pretty much did 40Gbps in favor of 1Tbps Ethernet.
Re: Lower CO2 emissions maybe
"..but there is an incredibly large amount of concrete in dams with the associated CO2 emissions."
Only during production. Once it's installed, concrete *absorbs* CO2 making calcium carbonate. Check out what happened to Biosphere 2, where not realising this created a few problems.
Re: Renewable is OK but...
"Not bad, only 7 readers so far who never get from behind their desk and only know how nature looks from those nice wallpapers on their desktops... Here, have a FAIL icon...."
Ooh, a pretty forest that could have been replaced with ooh, a pretty lake. No matter, thanks to Greenpeace Chile can mine coal instead, or cut forests for woodchip fuel.
Re: Stone Age?
"Telecomms is similar, except that it's rarely copper and even more rarely DC coupled these days. Most of the long-distance internet is optical fiber."
True. Sometimes there may be a locator/tracer wire in the duct to aid location which could be vulnerable to induction currents. If the cable's direct buried, there may be risks from currents in armour wire or possibly DC power in the cable. That's less common in Europe given it's usually a lot easier/cheaper to route via habitation and power amp/regen kit from utility power. Locator wires aren't always used though on 'cost saving grounds', but where they are, spans can be 40-80km long for the fibre sections but wires usually shorter to prevent high induction currents.
Re: Power storage?
"Why do you say "more storage is economic insanity" when we are currently paying generators to NOT supply electricity e.g. times when demand is low and wind output is high?"
That's a different form of economic insanity. The renewables lobby is ok with it because they get paid either way.
"If we had some means to store the surplus energy  at those times it would effectively be free electricity, which means that the round trip efficiency doesn't matter that much (in "market" terms anyway)."
Some people do, for example anyone with Economy 7. That was intended to solve a different problem of too much base load capacity. That could be used with minor tweaks to store surplus energy but doesn't really solve the grid problems when there's an energy shortage. It also wouldn't be free given the way the market's rigged. The surplus energy would be the most expensive given it's original generation cost plus the storage and transmission costs.
"You don't have to store it as electricity. If you took a "big picture" engineering rather than economics view of this, it's entirely possible to store the surplus energy *before* it's turned into electricity, e.g. offshore wind being used offshore to compress gas, lift weights, etc."
But if we're talking about the current wind fleet, they're blades attached to generators in the nacelles. They're designed to generate electricity, nothing else. Converting them to use mechanical energy to do work would mean drastic redesigns to the whole system, so more costs and inefficiencies. Wind pumps have been around for centuries though so could be used for pumped hydro. But once you've dumped the water because there's a blocking high, where do you get the energy from to refill the store?
Re: The future's bright then...
"Even now I'm looking out my kipper tie and flares, and growing my sideburns in, since everything seems to have turned so very f***ing 1970s."
What you really need is a smock, some nice wool trews and a horse and cart. Our 21st Century government is taking us right back to the 1770s. You're a farmer who rocks up to the miller with a cart load of grain. The miller points at the non-moving sails and tells you to come back next wednesday. Or the miller may have a 1-2hp backup generator if you're lucky. Fast forward 250yrs and businesses will be studying weather forecasts to try to match production with the weather, customer demand and cash flow. And %deity help them if they're from the Met Office, but at least they may soon rhyme.
Workers can listen to the work forecasts to see if it's worth heading into work, or just going to buy more candles. Assuming you can buy them given they're often paraffin wax. Although that may be why environmentalists want wetlands re-introduced so the peasents can buy rush or reed candles.
21st Century Energy policy is like the industrial revolution never happened.
Re: Power storage?
Because it's economic insanity. Check DECC's report here-
which models generation costs. It leaves a few things out but has CCGT @£80/MWh, FOAK nuclear @£90/MWh and then renewables ranging from £101-158/MWh. So even with a very generous set of assumptions, renewables are the most expensive form of generation. Then because renewables aren't (wind/solar) despatchable, ie able to be spun up/down in response to demand changes we have to spend on either CCGT (or even diesel gensets) to provide power when the wind isn't blowing or it's dark.
Storage could be a solution, but it would simply add the storage costs onto the cost of an already expensive product. Converting to hydrogen isn't storage, it's conversion of electricity into a gas that would then have to be moved somewhere it could be used. Hydros already used in UK, but we'd need a lot more of it to cope with long duration lulls in wind/wave generation. So basically it's a solution looking for a problem. Cheapest solution would be CCGT and nuclear/coal, especially if the £18/MWh carbon tax was removed from CCGT, and if gas prices fall as a result of EU fraccing.
"Netflix should say, "You are right Verizon, a direct connect would be better for out shared customers, you can drop free interconnects off at [insert NetFlix DC address here]"
And once they've done that for NetFlix, they can do that for me. This is about neutrality after all. Every ISP uses shared interconnects. The 'Tier-1' ISPs though are transit-free, which means unlike NetFlix, they don't pay "some of the world's largest transit networks" to deliver content. And I suppose it's a bit embarassing when those networks fail to deliver. Or when NetFlix fails to deliver the content their customers have paid for. Those subscription fees aren't shared, which is where the problem lies and the special pleading begins.
Re: It's empty!
..steam gauges and magnetic core memory. Early NVRAM. It was functional. The interior of the Dragon does look rather sparse, presumably because the passengers can't really do much during ascent & descent to fly the pod? But hopefully this will make turning the space station into a waystation for a manned Moon or Mars base easier.
Funding challenge sorted
"Musk announced that the V2 can transport up to seven ‘nauts.. You will be able to land anywhere on Earth with the accuracy of a helicopter,”
Or 4 Space Marines with their equipment. Once the trademarks are resolved. Impressive bit of technology though.
Re: "it can't really work any other way"
TOS bits are used extensively, or more accurately the IP Prec bits. TOS morphed into DiffServ/DSCP, the networks morphed into MPLS. The IP Prec bits get mapped onto the MPLS EXP bits and voila, IP Networks have a QoS capability as envisaged all those years ago in RFC791. Only the first 3 bits matter, the rest get TOSsed. These are also the bits some Net Neuts want to ban so the Internet can remain best efforts.
Shortest path also doesn't really matter for Netflix-style streaming. Shorter the path, the lower the latency so mostly relevant for real-time apps. CDNs are/were popular not to reduce latency, but cost. Stick a CDN box in an IX location and your connectivity costs drop to the cost of patching and peering/transit across a building vs sending lots of copies of the same content across a mass of expensive connections from a centralised server farm. Which may be somewhere stupid like Ireland. Nice for tax reasons, not so good if you're intending to push packets across the whole of Europe cheaply.
Joined up government
So in another article, trials for GP patient data selli.. I mean sharing are under way. HMRC want to sell.. I mean share our data. This is perfectly reasonable, and how else are private medical companies going to know how high to set our premiums, or charge us for treatments? It would be incredibly inefficient to ask more than we could afford, unless they partnered with credit companies..
Anyway HMRC are good at sharing data. They sent me mine quite promptly. Shame their cover letter told me it was in response to 'my FOI request', which normally excludes personal data. And I'd asked under the DPA, which requires data holders to hold reasonably limited and accurate data. And imagine my suprise when I found errors, like starting employment with one company the day after I'd left it. And imagine my disappointment that they wouldn't put this data into their tax return forms, so I could check it for them.
Re: An open question to the anti-net-neutrality crowd:
"Please explain why net neutrality is bad for me."
Mr Orlowski already went some way towards explaining why it's potentially bad. RFC791. The Internet Protocol-
There are no mechanisms to augment end-to-end data reliability, flow control, sequencing, or other services commonly found in host-to-host protocols. The internet protocol can capitalize on the services of its supporting networks to provide various types and qualities of service.
The pro-neutrality people argue that all packets should be treated equally, so should remain a best efforts network. The RFC should be revised to say the internet protocol cannot capitalize on the services of it's supporting networks because this is politically unacceptable to some lobbyists. If your real-time apps suffer because people are streaming or downloading, that's just too bad and the price you pay for an equitable, neutral Internet.
Reality is there are strong technical reasons to use the network to differentiate traffic based on requirement. The Internet community recognises this and there's another RFC, 2474 which explains how traffic could be managed. But only on private networks it seems. Enabling this on the public networks would arguably be beneficial, but the pro-neutrality lobbyists don't seem to want it.
The rest is largely an economics and education problem. Enabling QoS on the public Internet would allow differentiated rate plans. If you don't want video or voice, take a basic <=XXMbps Best Efforts service. If you want video, take a service with <=8Mbps of AF4 assigned. If you're getting VoIP, throw in 100Kbps of EF and you can make a phone call or two depending on your codec. This is all stuff we've been doing in industry for years, even across peering connections, but only really for private IP networks. Then it's just arguing the rates per class.
That shouldn't need to be a complex argument. Regulators have used principles like RAND and FRAND to determine market behaviours, especially in monopoly or SMP conditions. Rates are published and applied in a non-discriminatory fashion and neutrality remains, other than larger players being able to get volume-based discounts. Operator's own services get tested using EOI (Equivalence of Input) to (try and) ensure fairness. Users get a better quality experience and a choice of something other than best efforts. Do you really think this is a bad thing?
And as for-
and above all else that no internet provider is allowed to prioritize packets from services they own above those of services from competing providers.
Not even the routing and control protocol traffic required to maintain your network's stability?
Re: Fees for requiring unneeded trips
"You could all be watching the same copy, rather than downloading it from Netflix separately. Netflix has these cache boxes, and provides them to the ISPs for free. But AT&T and Comcast refuse to take them, instead insisting that Netflix stream each copy separately from Amazon's datacenters - multiplying by thousands the bandwidth unnecessarily. This is as bad "
Yes, but it's Netflix's choice complicated by Amazon's choice of location for it's datacentres. So Netflix has cache boxes. They're not free, they require space, power, cooling and bandwidth. If Netflix wants those services, most ISPs offer them as collocation and transit and charge accordingly. There are also potential neutrality implications. If ISPs offer this free to the market leader, should they also offer the same terms to any other content provider? If ISPs offer CDN services, why wouldn't Netflix use those rather than forcing proprietary systems on operators? And if ISPs do special deals for Netflix, wouldn't that be potentially anti-competitive behaviour and harm the companies like Akami etc who've invested in CDN? If there were a common caching standard and protocols, wouldn't that make life easier for everyone?
As for Amazon, that's another example of where Netflix may have made a bad decision. AWS and CloudFront for Europe are located just outside Dublin. That may be attractive for tax reasons, but isn't exactly central for Europe and costs more for capacity than more traditional locations like London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris etc. Why would ISPs pay to increase capacity to Ireland to benefit Netflix, and also Amazon when both compete with operators CDN, content and compute services.
"What Mr AT&T seems to have somehow overlooked in his little diatribe is that - Netflix do pay bandwidth costs - just like every other service on the internet - in order to get their data piped across the public internet - they pay someone, probably multiple someones."
I doubt he's overlooked it, and as the FCC's consulting on this at the moment, expect more opinions from the involved parties. Level 3's been complaining as well-
"To honor the promises they make consumers, these ISPs must then connect their networks to the other networks that can supply any Internet content the ISPs cannot provide themselves (which is most of it). It also means that as overall Internet content gets bigger (think of HD movies versus e-mails), all providers must “augment” their networks – making them bigger to accommodate the exponential growth due to the Internet’s success."
The problem is still a split set of contractual obligations and payments. Netflix pays Level 3 to deliver content, so presumably if that content can't be delivered, Level 3 should be expected to pay some of the costs to make sure it can. Consumers then have contracts with Netflix to deliver content, and pay Netflix; and consumers also have contracts with their ISPs to deliver 'up to xxMbps' of Internet with some SLA attached.
Content providers like Netflix, and transit providers like Level 3 & Cogent then assume that because the user is paying their ISP, all costs for delivering content should be borne by the user. Access provider networks like AT&T are suggesting the content providers should contribute more towards the costs of delivering their content. If the FCC disagrees, the access ISPs are going to have to recover increased costs from their customers, or switch more towards usage charging models to avoid penalising light users. The content providers aren't taking their positions for the good of the 'net though, they're doing it to avoiding having to pay.
Re: auto update?
"Does their auto updater (accessed through the control panel) not work then?"
Depends on your definition of 'work'. If you mean automatically launches itself at startup telling you there's a new version of Flash despite setting update checks to 'never', then no it does not work. I live in hope that some day Adobe will release an updater that simply does what you tell it to do.
Re: Its not that people are stupid
"Hence the service would still work, but quality would be absolutely abysmal, yet the same customer can download 5Gb files in minutes - As far as the customer is concerned the connection is working at a reasonable speed, so they will lay the blame with Netflix!"
Corrcctly assigning blame is always the challenge, and subject of frequent peering battles. A lot of current degradation is due to capacity issues at the interconnects with ISPs, and the net neutrality argument is often about who should pay for them. If degradation is due to Netflix (or any OTT provider) maxing out their interconnect, who should pay for the upgrades, and how should those upgrades be priced?
Dear $deity, no.
Please give me dumb switchgear and not 'smart dashboards'. I want RealButtons and RealSwitches that are tactile, provide positive feedback and don't jump around depending on display mode. And also mean I spend less time taking my eyes off the road to try and figure out what the GUI is doing. Which is probably telling me I'm about to crash and would I like to choose from one of this list of personal injury lawyers?
Re: I'm going to repeat a post I made on another forum; it has relevance.
- terrorism laws lead to the relaxation of carefully guarded rights, obligations, and expectations. It is now apparently acceptable to monitor *all* communications - even if 'only' for traffic analysis
It's not just terrorism laws, but technology in general that are eroding rights and expectations. Pretty much every 'net connected company seems to think it's acceptable to do traffic or social analysis using whatever data they can get their grubby mits on. And are far less regulated than the T or FLAs.
Marketing told us: 'Justin Bieber is a fad. He’s not going to last.' – Company formerly known as RIM
"The FBI, CIA and the Defense Humint Service all have HUMINT operations in Second Life and other GVEs and are very interested in forming a deconfliction and tipping group that would be able to collaborate on operations."
Translation: Have staffers keen to play MMOs all day, in the interests of national security, naturally. Wonder if they consulted EVE players, then retreated to WoW and Second Life?
(OB RIP VileRat, who knew a thing or two about operations, HUMINT etc and was sadly killed in the Libyan embassy attack)
delivery charges in grammes or grains?
"30mm Oerlikon cannon"
Yes please. Or at the risk of invoking wheelguns vs automatics, Oerlikon's Millenium cannon. Or nothing says 'keep out of my backyard' like your own Skyshield system. But although fun, I can't help thinking a spot of hacking would end up more lucrative
Re: If only more customers had clue
You may be in luck then. Sending white papers isn't necessarily a good indication of clue, but communal purchasing may be. And you're luckier than being a tenant in a building where the FMCo tries to lock you into their voice & dtata services. Some buildings do this well, many do it badly.
Best way is to stick to simple transport and look for a way to get cheap/reliable 1G or 10G Ethernets. I'm guessing the tender will involve dark fibre (preferably diverse) from site to 1 or (preferably more) 'carrier neutral' datacentre. Things to watch out for would be O&M on the DF and additional charges for DC patching. If you think telco charges are bad, look into patch costs. Oh, and if you fancy another white paper, one asking about the rateable value of fibre would be helpful. He who lights the fibre gets the bill.
Other pitfalls to avoid tend to occur in the DC. A commodity switch with 24/48 10/100/1000 ports is nice and cheap. But if they're copper, they're distance limited which means media convertors, which means more cost and space/power required. Telco oriented switches (MRV, Ciena, Transmode etc) do pluggables making optical or electrical handoff easier. Then you just need service providers that are willing (or able) to x-connect their stuff to yours, which can be a challenge in itself with some suppliers.
If the FMC wants to play higher up the stack, well, good luck with that. There be real monsters :)
If only more customers had clue
Problem with the DIY approach is Mr Dabbs would then have to figure out how to resell and manage 80+ medja companies contending a 1G EAD. This could be non-trivial, but amusing as a spectator sport.
The £4k civils quoted isn't bad. Costs would include the basic coring, running a new lateral, running fibre, splicing it into the 'manhole' (or chamber), installing a BFP, splicing into that, running ducts to this customer's 'comms room', installing an ODF, splicing to the ODF, splicing the metro fibre possibly at a few points on the way to the service node, testing the fibre and then handing the job to the fluffy guys to turn it into a service this customer wants. I may have missed a few bits out, but this part's often the easy bit.
There would also be contactinng the landlord/agent for wayleave, preparing method statements, risk assessments etc. In serviced buildings, agents may want a wayleave fee, riser rentals or just their legal costs paid. This part can take a lot longer. Especially if the landlord/agent already has a service company which may be competing.
Luckily if the chamber's in the path, there wouldn't be as much paperwork involved with the council, or costs for traffic management. Plus if you're really unlucky, the council's stopped the road so it can't be dug up again for a couple of years.
But getting fibre into buildings isn't as trivial as many people think, or as cheap as they think it should be. Neither is terminating it and turning it into a resellable service, but this is the sensible way to spread the costs. A follow-up with the solution from the winning bidder would be interesting.
Impersonal personal information for no purposeful purpose
"is not personal but viewing information," the statement explains. The information is collected, it says, in order to provide "more relevant advertisement"
It doesn't collect any personal information, but uses what it collects to try and serve more personalised information. This is an explanation only a marketing person (overshadowed by counsel) could make with a straight face. How could it make adverts "more relevant", unless it understood the personal characteristics of the person it's targetting?
Traditonal date for launching rockets
November 5th. Although not in India, unless it's become part of Diwali. But good on India. We've been busy navel gazing and whining about potential resource shortages and India looks up for a solution.
Re: Perhaps it's those nice "white hat hackers"...
<opens process list>
Yup, I'm still infected. Hopefully the hackers will make a patch to kill herpes-like Adobe TSR processes.
It's the commoditisation of the Internet. Back in the good'ol days, access and knowledge about telco infrastructure was limited to mostly those that worked for telcos and some big corporates. Along came the interwebz and now anyone can play with most of the same kit as telcos/ISPs/IXPs use. An Internet exchange isn't particularly sophisticated and mostly just a collection of big switches. Or for smaller exchanges, smaller switches that can be picked up on Ebay. And the IXP's 'public', so an exercise in how to break out of the forwarding plane to the control plane.
And being commodity kit, once you've done that, you've got the same exploit to attack similar targets like trading exchanges, large corporates etc etc.
Want to gain access to a GRX core router?
Buy a connection and peer with it. It's how GRX exchanges usually work.
Der Spiegel doesn't appear to have asked anyone in industry about this or their previous article. Belgacom doesn't own (many) submarine cables and the ones listed are consortium or 'club' cables. Telcos invest in those in exchange for capacity and other perks like controlling the landing stations, and thus making money off backhaul sales. Having rights to a percentage of the capacity doesn't automatically mean access to SLTs or muxes that would give potential access to other member's capacity.
Re: access to documents by unix/linux credentials only?
I don't get the credentials, or lack thereof. If the data's encrypted on the system/server, a sysadmin can fiddle to their hearts content. They could move stuff with a memory stick, but unless they could decrypt it, they couldn't leak it. It's harder to manage, but surely a lot more secure?
Lingerie advertising becoming a lot more expensive under a pay-per-gaze model.
Re: Blocking isn't easy
Yep. It's an application layer problem, not a network one. Novel idea for promoting IPv6 adoption though. Use it so future takedown notices can target you more accurately. Plus it may still not work. Configure this:
ipv6 address 2002:0db8:6301::/128 anycast
on v6 links in several jurisdictions :)
Re: Blocking isn't easy
The 'net still uses 1938 concepts like packet headers or envelope addresses. ISP's look (or are supposed to look) at the address, not the content. DPI boxen to look deeper ain't cheap.
Re: Basic tort law ?
<blockquote>Surely an innocent commercial website that can demonstrate a monetary loss would have standing to take the ISPs to court for damages ? I would humbly suggest on a basis of negligence.</blocking>
You may be negligent in picking the target of your sue-ball. ISP produces copy of the court order specifying the IP address to be blocked. ISPs block it. I would humbly suggest we need to see a copy of the court order first and what actions that instructed the ISPs to take.
Re: Better than less, I suppose
The constraints are usually a combination of physical and economic, not political. Pipes are narrow due to costs and infrastructure limits. You could have your small apartment building. You could offer 10Gbps to each flat. You could offer a 100Gbps backhaul link. 10G switches with 100G uplinks are available now.
You could think about 100G to every apartment, but your switch would cost more than the average apartment, especially if you filled it with transceivers that currently cost $20k+ a go. Your tenants would also need 100G NICs on their kit, and iGadgets don't include those yet. You'd also be unlikely to saturate the bandwidth given the constraints would be at the far end. There aren't many 100G servers installed yet because the costs are very high as 100G currently costs more than 10x10G. Customer perception can be that 100G should be cheaper, and it isn't, yet. Plus you'd need servers that could saturate a 100G link, and avoid SPOFs compared to 10x10G servers and a distribution switch.
And the main technical constraint would still be the number of wavelengths you can get down a fibre, which gives you the cost per wavelength. Technology allows more bits per wavelength, but it's done less to reduce the practical costs of installing and maintaining fibre.
Re: ISP's should only provide access and bandwidth...nothing else!(@ Dan Paul)
"We pay the ISPs for access to the whole Internet, not to some subset arbitrarily chosen by an interested party."
I've got a 50Mbps connection. Why can't I get 50Mbps to livehotyaks.mn? My ISP's fault, or the Mongolian ISP's fault? As for Kroes' comment-
"After all, when you buy a carton of milk, you don't expect it to be half-empty:"
Yet when you buy a carton of cornflakes or soap powder, it usually is half-empty. Maybe ISP's should just add a label saying 'packets may settle during transit'. Or peering.
Re: 20 European Freeriders ask Kroes to defend real open internet
"Network access providers must be prohibited from blocking, degrading, hindering (including through application and/or service specific price surcharges) and throttling targeted at applications, services, content or protocols."
That's a shame. ISPs better turn off their DDOS protection systems as they throttle applications, services, content and protocols. ISPs better not even hint at offering QoS to allow better quality voice, video or real-time application usage. That would allow better speech or video quality, or even improved twitch gaming, but would sadly violate 'net neutrality'. Too bad the 'net will have to stay best efforts
It starts with a bit of a false premise-
"throwing buckets of bandwidth at any problem, and attaching the intelligence to the network edge, it could ship bits around vastly cheaper than telco carrier networks"
This is not strictly true given the 'net is fundamentally reliant on telco/carrier networks. It also depends on a definition of 'edge'. At the extreme edge, ie customer premise, the network doesn't need to be very intelligent. If you've only got 1 connection to the 'net, deciding where your traffic goes next isn't difficult. If you've got an IP connection to a PoP, that PoP may typically only have 2 connections to the rest of the 'net, so routing decision is perhaps left or right, or maybe back out another interface for P2P or local traffic. So for basic networking, you don't really need much intelligence.
Problem is and was router vendors make a lot of money selling routers, which are 'intelligen't devices that end up spending most of their lives doing simple forwarding. Their business is and was challenged by dumber networks (eg Ethernet) in the volume space at the edges of the network. Use cheap Ethernet to aggregate and forward to somewhere with some brains, if it needs a routing decision. Adding expensive routers into the network just adds unecessary costs. Putting more intelligence into the network can reduce bandwidth by using it more efficiently.
"I take it this means 2 networks, the biggie for user data + a mini on top for control, is that right? "
Kind of, but it's more about communication between the network and the service layer/user data. At the moment there's little communication between those layers. Suppose a customer has a 2x 10G pipes. One's full because their router says that's the best route. The other is practically empty. With better signalling, the network could potentially shift traffic onto the idle link or increase capacity. Same could be done if a circuit was degraded. QoS gets more contentious given the net neutrality arguments.
"I thought that's what big switches/routers/whatever were doing, though I don't understand the comment about 'more generic servers'"
If you're switching or forwarding most of the traffic, then intelligence in most of the network is less complex, so cheaper. So with an MPLS network as an example, put the Internet into a VRF and if it needs to make a routing decision, forward that to a route server. Which doesn't need to be an expensive router.
"How, how, how, with magic or something?"
By offering value-added services, or simply better performing services. Challenge would be overcoming user perception that networks are big, dumb, bit pipes that should be cheap.
"And how is anyone who doesn't do heavy duty networking supposed to decipher this article?"
Same way you would any marketing.. use caution, examine the claims. Try and figure out how adding cost reduces price :p
- Pic Mars rover 2020: Oxygen generation and 6 more amazing experiments
- Microsoft's Euro cloud darkens: US FEDS can dig into foreign servers
- Plug and PREY: Hackers reprogram USB drives to silently infect PCs
- Review Fiat Panda Cross: 'Interesting-looking' Multipla spawn hits UK
- Analysis PEAK LANDFILL: Why tablet gloom is good news for Windows users