On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, Joe Abley wrote:

This sounds very much like Internet2's policy in the US, and CA*Net 4's policy in Canada. The observable result of this policy at a few US universities that I have talked to is that their trunks to the commercial internet are chock-a-block full of file sharing and pr0n for 90% of the day, and their i2 links sit idle.

I thought that Internet 2 was full of file sharing protocols (maybe it was botnets). Certainly it could make a change from the 2004 nznog where Kewin Stoeckigt complained about getting charged $0.10 - $0.40 per Megabyte. In a couple of years time people will be asking their University friends to download media for them, just like they did back in the 1990s. -- Simon J. Lyall. | Very Busy | Mail: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.

At 12:43 a.m. 22/09/2004 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:

On 22 Sep 2004, at 00:35, Lin Nah wrote:

...

Looks like the NGI proposal will shut out private or commercial users unless they comply with the Network use policy.

This sounds very much like Internet2's policy in the US, and CA*Net 4's policy in Canada. The observable result of this policy at a few US universities that I have talked to is that their trunks to the commercial internet are chock-a-block full of file sharing and pr0n for 90% of the day, and their i2 links sit idle.

Maybe that's the idea.

its been a long day and so I'll bite. no offence Joe or Lin, or anyone else First - the old Kawaihiko was a closed network, but it never stopped us :-) Second - you wouldn't want to put a $ earning production network anywhere near this thing. As an example, today we have been running a 4 node Access Grid. There are 16 video streams running at about a meg each. Tomorrow a 5th node will join and I'll wind up the streams to 2 meg each so thats 20 meg into each node. We can easily wind them up to 4 meg per stream...but 2 meg looks fine. Today a switch port flapped and knocked me off several times. I had to restart lots of streams each time. Eventually I found the issue. But think of the impact on your network when a client starts playing with 20megs. Equally I don't want others stuffing round with the ports or routing flaps or anything else that makes me have to restart as the grid gets better (bigger) 20 streams is Ok, what about with 40 nodes - thats 160 streams. I might get quite cross..... Right now we're playing with VHS quality streams. Shortly they'll be DVD quality streams at 40mbps each (yes thats 160mbps per node, more than my brain can work out tonight for the grid). The Koreans are running HDTV nodes already on Canarie (Joe's land) at around 250mbps per stream (1gig per node). We'll be doing that within 12 months with a little luck. (maybe thats a lot of luck) (I'm not sure quite why they want to see each other with that clarity - maybe they do High Def p0rn.....) Do you really want us flicking that sort of traffic on/off production networks as we try things out ? Equally, do I want others potentially breaking it ? So I think being responsible (or grumpy after a hard day) the networks are better off being separated. Mind you as we all step up to 10GE and the 100GE starts to appear this will be trivial..... Third - if you thought that some one would "give" you a cheap gig transit you're dreaming. You have to work for that. But it will develop the apps that will drive bandwidth demands. Some of you have seen the DVD quality streams I'm putting out on R2 (they're 2mbps streams) . My servers are idle at 2% and can easily handle 3000 viewers each. How many ISPs are ready for that sort of traffic ? How many are ready to lower their prices so that the punters can afford to watch ? Its the prices and content that will drive this thing. Rich off to get sleep so I make sense - even to myself.......just hit "delete" now and go back to the programme..... did any of that make sense ?

I'll run it if you guys would like. Josh On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 17:33:16 +1200, Peter Mott wrote:

Jonathan Brewer wrote:

...

Folks,

Please excuse this very public rant. I wish NZNOG had a Slash-like website for us to go to town on.

We will host it free of charge if somebody wants to be scribe :-)

regards

-- Peter Mott Chief Engineer 2DAY INTERNET LIMITED http://www.2day.com

"It's kind of fun to do the impossible!" Walt Disney

_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

-- Joshua Brady

Condition 10: All organisations connecting to the New Zealand Advanced Network will maintain a link to the commodity Internet.

I conclude that the Advanced Network isn't going to do a damn thing to alleviate the situation that NZ Universities are currently faced with in regards to the Internet.

You're exactly right. You know why? Because it's not *trying* to alleviate these issues. The NZ Advanced Network is not about reading webpages. It's not about downloading mp3s or using Kazaa. It's about shipping multi-gigabyte volumes of data between research organisations. It's about developing the next generation of network apps that will rely on this capacity of transit. As for 15 c/MB charges at Victoria, we face similar charges at Waikato. It's one of the reasons we (as a network research group) want this network - not because we care overly about paying to read Slashdot every morning, but because 15 or 10 even 1 c/MB is far too much when you want to send 600 GB of network traces to Auckland. And it'll take too long across a 10Mbit TC ethernet connection. -- Daniel Lawson WAND Group, Computer Science Department University of Waikato email: daniel(a)wand.net.nz phone: +64 7 838 4136