February 2002 - NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

FW: Trapped in a glut of surplus bandwidt with no apparent way o ut
by Frank March 26 Feb '02

26 Feb '02

A further addition to the interesting debate we have been having on Internet 2/broadband. OT perhaps, and relating to the US/Canadian scene, but fascinating. This is taken from the CYBERTELECOM list. <sample quote> Demand will not skyrocket until the LEC controlled copper based local loop is by passed and either fiber or multi-megabit per second wireless reaches the vast majority of homes and businesses. </sample quote> Frank March Specialist Advisor, IT Policy Group Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, NZ Ph: (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax: (+64 4) 471 2658 > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Cook [SMTP:cook(a)COOKREPORT.COM] > Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2002 11:14 > To: CYBERTELECOM-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Subject: Trapped in a glut of surplus bandwidt with no apparent way > out > > from pages 31 -33 of may 2002 cook report - published yesterday. > more detail at http://cookreport.com/11.02.shtml > > We find that we are trapped between the jaws of huge ununsed capacity > and content owners protection of intellectual property at any cost. > The politics and economics of our slavish obedience to the "free > market" is constricting the availability of bandwidth by placing > marketing and policy in the hands of those who expect pay-per-use > demand that lives in a walled garden to define and drive the > development of broadband services. > > Only about 5 or 6 percent of the long haul inter city fiber installed > has been lit or will be lit in the foreseeable future. Of the fiber > that is lit by 80 wavelength capable boxes only about 8% of what > these boxes are capable of is in use. Each incremental wavelength > used costs only a few thousand dollars per line card per a couple of > dozen boxes to install. Adding ten gigabits to a backbone is > relatively trivial and compared to the original cost of building and > lighting the incremental cost of doing so is very small. Currently > only about four to eight wavelengths per carrier are lit. > > Consider demand. Just as the demand for dark fiber IRUs has peaked > and fallen off, the demand for wavelengths may now be peaking. Until > the fiber owners start publishing verifiable numbers every quarter on > how many wavelengths they have "sold" via IRU and via lease there is > no credible way to judge changing trends in supply and demand. > > Now we can safely assume that with phone network use having peaked > there will be little in the way of additional demand there. Assuming > that data still doubles every year in North America, you may be able > to sell an aggregate of 20 to 25 new lambdas this year to handle > carrier data growth. But with fifteen American carriers and six > Canadian each with 80 wavelength capable systems you have an easily > provisioned supply of more than 1600 lambdas perhaps only 150 of > which are lit. The problem is that without complete disclosure from > each carrier there is no way of knowing exactly what capacity is > actually in use. > > Nevertheless our experts are all in agreement that used capacity is > only a tiny fraction of what's available. Whether the amount is 4 > percent or 12 percent, under current circumstances, makes little > difference. In short we likely have at least a five or six year > window with current growth before, with the addition of new lambdas, > we fill the capacity of the fibers that have been lit. Sales of dark > fiber IRUs have basically ended leaving long haul growth dependent on > lambdas sales. > > But who will buy? Prices are getting cheap enough for enterprise > networks to consider using lambdas. But right now even the largest > enterprise networks are mostly 155 megabits with a very few 2.5 > gigabit links here and there. Most enterprises don't have the means > of connecting 2.5 gigabits to a campus let along ten. This leaves > other carriers who have a fraction of the capital they once did and > whose need for new capacity has slackened. > > Bill St Arnaud put it this way: "However, even given a rapid growth > in data traffic, I think in the long haul it will be another 3 years > before we see any new fibers lit, another 10 years before new fibers > are blown in existing conduit and another and 15 years before new > conduit is trenched in the ground." The situation seems dire and will > determine the fate of many carriers. Policy makers and financial > markets are being called on to make judgments but neither policy > makers nor financial markets can see the carriers' resources. With > the small resources at our command, The COOK Report certainly cannot > do a definitive census of the carriers. But even if increased > resources could be brought to bear, it is unlikely that carriers > would admit to a highly embarrassing situation. > > We are stuck with a conundrum where until the debt is wiped off > carrier books or until demand skyrockets you have the entire industry > embedded in a continued downward spiral that results in more and more > bankruptcies. Demand will not skyrocket until the LEC controlled > copper based local loop is by passed and either fiber or > multi-megabit per second wireless reaches the vast majority of homes > and businesses. Even then the demand may still be too easily filled > by capacity on hand, until and unless the Canadians can make it > possible to extend a wavelength to every home and business. > > The technology has indeed overwhelmed the global infrastructure and > its installed economic base and rendered it not economically > sustainable. Canada looks to be following a strategy of enabling more > uses for bandwidth while the United States follows a course of > laissez faire in which the market knows best theory is freed to allow > the concentration of media and carriers to consolidate an > infrastructure duopoly where cable and DSL are the only officially > blessed avenues to broadband. The US policy seems likely to be one of > handing the market to huge and powerful old technology companies. The > funny thing is that if Googin is right those companies will fail. > > -- > ======================================================== > The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) > 882-2572 (phone & fax) cook(a)cookreport.com Subscription info & > prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Summary of > content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml > The Future of the Industry - Googin & > Odlyzko on telco viability - April issue available at > http://cookreport.com/11.01.shtml > ======================================================== Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Re: Phew looks like we were lucky
by Richard Naylor 26 Feb '02

26 Feb '02

At 07:33 p.m. 26/02/2002 +1300, you wrote: >I'm sure this is a lot different for you as a primarily layer 2 provider, >whereas people like us have to provide all sorts of crazy services, like >MPLS VPN's, AVVID, etc over the circuits we provide to customers we have >to have a lot more intelligence closer to the edge of the network than >Citylink appears to be. >So, whilst I agree that its about architectures, it's also about services. >Some architectures are better than others for different things, but I >guess you knew that. yes - but I didn't want to get into that detail. Remember that in Wn we INSIST that a customer have a router at the edge. Its just that we make them buy it. THats because when we started (with $85K) routers were expensive and we avoided that outlay.. We still insist on routers and in AKL we provide them as a part of the connection. rich richard.naylor(a)citylink.co.nz - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

RE: Traffic Shaping
by Denis Gordon 26 Feb '02

26 Feb '02

Sahil, If ICQ traffic uses fixed well known IP address and/or sockets then you can cap bandwidth with the "traffic-shape" IOS interface command. I don't know if this is the case or not. For example, here's how we cap SMTP traffic at 128K. First setup an extended access-list defining the IP addresses/sockets you want to cap. ! SMTP mail no access-list 125 access-list 125 permit tcp any any eq smtp access-list 125 permit tcp any eq smtp any The apply it to your interfaces - interface serial0 traffic-shape group 125 128000 interface ethernet0 traffic-shape group 125 128000 This will cap all SMTP at 128K in & out. regards Denis Gordon Network Administrator Information Systems Technical Support Dunedin City Council 50 The Octagon, PO Box 5045, Dunedin, New Zealand Ph: +64-3-474 3566 Fax: +64-3-474 3503 Mobile: 025 845 583 Email: denis(a)dcc.govt.nz WWW: http://www.CityOfDunedin.com/ -----Original Message----- From: Dean Pemberton [mailto:dean(a)flatnet.gen.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2002 10:24am To: Sahil Gupta - NET4U Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: Traffic Shaping I didn't think a 2501 passed packets any faster than that anyway? Dean (Ok that was low. Really low. But I think this groups needs some humour at the moment, so I'm gonna let it slide) On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 09:02:25PM +0000, Sahil Gupta - NET4U wrote: > Hello, > Would anyone know how to rate Morpheus and IRC etc as low priority traffic > and capped to 128k on a Cisco 2501 with IOS 11.1? > > Regards, > > Sahil Gupta > NET4U Limited > > ------------------------------------ > NET4U -- www.net4u.co.nz > Home of the new - $24.95 128k ADSL > Nationwide Internet Service Provider > ------------------------------------ > > - > To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > where the body of your message reads: > unsubscribe nznog - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

Research Networks [was Re: Phew looks like we were lucky]
by Donald Neal 26 Feb '02

26 Feb '02

>>> "Stephen Donnelly" <sfd(a)cs.waikato.ac.nz> 02/25/02 04:37 >>> >If your question Joe is 'what is the justification for internet2?', then I'd say >there seems to be at least two commonly cited ones. >One is the use in current large applications such as 'grid' computing, a la DTF. >Connecting super computer centres may consume a lot of bandwidth. Climate >models, particle physics results etc. >The other one is that the internet2 is supposed to spurr new application >development, showing what *can* be done with huge amounts of bandwidth when it's >available at low cost. One of the more PR friendly applications would probably >be the 'virtual teleconferencing' systems, where 3d models are transmitted along >with the video, allowing participants to be rendered in 3d at each end. (Enables >you to make direct eye contact, surprisingly important.) What that means is that a high-bandwidth network can be useful as a testbed for all sorts of stuff. That's an argument for building one if you actually have enough interest from research institutions, but suggests that they'd need to take a lead in calling for one. >So in short, the internet2 initiatives aren't so much about networking anymore, >as applications. On the other hand, the vBNS has native multi-cast, Abilene >supports IPv6, and CA-net3 is intended to be 'all optical'; they're developing >OBGP for instance. And if you want to understand how new technologies and new ideas fit together there's no substitute for experience. These are not issues which have directly to do with providing cheap bandwidth for less experimental customers, which is where this thread seems to have gone. Asking a serious question which may have some relevance to this list, is anyone in New Zealand doing any research at present which would use high-bandwidth links in either of these ways? - Donald Neal -- Donald Neal Special Operations Network Delivery Telecom New Zealand Ltd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you." ============================================================================== - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

Re: Phew looks like we were lucky
by Ewen McNeill 25 Feb '02

25 Feb '02

In message <5.1.0.14.0.20020226123309.026f07c0(a)pop3.attica.net.nz>, Mark Foster writes: >> From my point of view bandwidth is very cheap now. Of course this is >>coming from first connecting to the Internet when we were being charged >>around $600/MB ($0.60 per kilobyte) for (international) traffic. Now I'm >>paying, what, about $0.20 per megabyte (less in some instances) for >>international traffic. > >My problem with this is that you pay $0.20/meg for *traffic* regardless of >its target. I don't know what the case is with Jetstart, etc, as I've never used them (at least in a context where I was paying the bill). The "Paradise.Net model" I mentioned earlier charges 1/10th of the International charge for "local" (national, ie in New Zealand) traffic. This seems to work well for TSNZ, and it works well for me (as an end customer). Most other traffic-based pricing plans I've had over the last 10 years or so have had similar rules (including the ones that I implemented the software for way back when): cheaper rates for more local traffic. If Jetstart doesn't do that (ie charges national and international traffic at the same (high) rate), then yes, I agree, it's discouraging local use, and it's bad. International bandwidth is lots more expensive than national bandwidth (all that ocean all around) to the provider, so in a pass-the-costs-on model it should be more expensive to the consumer too. >Bandwidth has dropped in cost, but we download more, and faster, nowadays. I could easily get through "as much bandwidth as I can afford" way back then as I could now, if I tried. By no means is it perfect now. And yes, the charges in New Zealand are probably higher than charges overseas by pure exchange rates or whatever. But quite a number of providers overseas (eg, the US) appear to have been going out of business which is, umm, inconvenient for their customers, suggesting they're not entirely profitable charges there. Oh, and there's all that expensive-to-put-bandwidth-over ocean between New Zealand and pretty much anywhere else. That sort of adds to the cost, meaning direct comparisions aren't entirely appropriate. Ewen - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

3 2

Simon's SCC question
by Juha Saarinen 25 Feb '02

25 Feb '02

http://www.southerncrosscables.com/layup.htm -- not sure if it's accurate/up-to-date, but the roll-overs say that there are three fibre pairs, each with sixteen wavelengths with a 10Gbps bit rate, going to Australia and to Hawaii. 3*16*10=480Gbps, presumably. Wonder how much of this is in use though? -- Juha Take off every sig! - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

Digital Divide in Alberta
by Joe Abley 24 Feb '02

24 Feb '02

The article's a little light on the details, but I thought the idea of a government initiative designed to supply broadband internet to a province of 3 million widely-distributed people might ring some bells for someone :) http://business.cisco.com/app/tree.taf?asset_id=83016 - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0

RE: Phew looks like we were lucky
by Frank March 24 Feb '02

24 Feb '02

I think the point is not to 'fill the pipes' but to explore the options that become available when bandwidth is not a restriction. Necessarily there is another condition: the bandwidth has to be essentially free. Empty pipes capably of handing bursty/intermittent/occasional traffic at very high transfer rates will allow for completely different long distance apps than we currently use. Think what Mr Gates has done to use up the abundant/free cpu cycles and RAM. Not always good/useful/desirable, but different from what we thought heavy use of computing was 30 years ago. Time was when a typewriter took no cpu cycles at all. Frank March Specialist Advisor, IT Policy Group Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, NZ Ph: (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax: (+64 4) 471 2658 > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Abley [SMTP:jabley(a)automagic.org] > Sent: Monday, 25 February 2002 17:10 > To: Stephen Donnelly > Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: Re: Phew looks like we were lucky > > On Sunday, February 24, 2002, at 10:37 , Stephen Donnelly wrote: > > >If your question Joe is 'what is the justification for internet2?', > >then I'd say there seems to be at least two commonly cited ones. > > > >One is the use in current large applications such as 'grid' computing, > >a la DTF. Connecting super computer centres may consume a lot of > >bandwidth. Climate models, particle physics results etc. > > How much bandwidth is "a lot of bandwidth"? I see commercial providers > with multiple parallel STM-64s plumbed directly into routers either > sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific, who are struggling to attract > customers to even remotely fill the pipes. The situation in the metro > and long-haul intracontinental networks is even more fibre-rich. I don't > see a need to build another internet here -- I see a need to start using > the existing one :) > > >The other one is that the internet2 is supposed to spurr new > >application development, showing what *can* be done with huge amounts > >of bandwidth when it's available at low cost. One of the more PR > >friendly applications would probably be the 'virtual teleconferencing' > >systems, where 3d models are transmitted along with the video, allowing > >participants to be rendered in 3d at each end. (Enables you to make > >direct eye contact, surprisingly important.) > > This is the same answer as the one above, really -- "in order to obtain > more bandwidth". > Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

8 8

Com Domain Names with False Details
by Craig Whitmore 22 Feb '02

22 Feb '02

Does anyone know what can be done about people registering .com Domain Names with False Details? Do the .com people have rules about this? Like: nzadsl.com whois: Registrant: Sludge Sludge.mistymountainhop.com Sludge, Sludge 666 SJ Domain Name: NZADSL.COM Administrative Contact: Snuffalufagus, Sludge Sludge(a)mistymountainhop.com Sludge.mistymountainhop.com Sludge, Sludge 666 SJ 1234567890 (The Details on mistymountainhop.com as the same) Thanks Craig Whitmore Orcon Internet http://www.orcon.net.nz - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

2 1

Reminder of contacts lists (NZ Noc and APE)
by Simon Lyall 22 Feb '02

22 Feb '02

Just a quick reminder (I keep forgetting to ask Donald to put this in his monthly mailout to the list). The New Zealand Network Operators' Contact list page has the [emergancy] contact details for most(1) New Zealand ISPs. It's online at: http://www.usenet.net.nz/noc/index.html Please email me with any corrections and updates. A web page for the Auckland Peering Exchange (APE) lists everybody (AFAIK) currently connected to it along with a contact for peering and other information. It is at: http://www.ape.net.nz/ Please email me with any corrections or updates, or fill out the web form. (1) Except Global Gateway / Netgate. -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT. - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog

1 0