[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Sunday traffic curiosity
Thank you for the update.
The rural usage peaking at 1600 (instead of 2000-24000) sounds as a
relevant indicator, I think.
It sounds as a shock ('in the middle of the day'), but it is a wave.Â
People spot it from a distance, and you do have time. There are levels
of 'stay home', increasingly restrictive, separated by days.
It's not like the tsunami hitting Fukushima, and nothing like 9/11 shock.
Ohio borders Pennsylvania and further NYC who is in a level of emergency
state - cant get into Manhattan. Ohio is not in the MidWest, and there
were earlier claims that MidWest might not be affected - I dont know.
If trust there is.
The communnication channels must stay up.
Yours,
Alex, LF/HF 3
Le 23/03/2020 à 15:01, Josh Luthman a écrit :
> I'm in Ohio. Dewine announced a stay at home order in the middle of
> the day.
>
> Our uplink that feeds more urban customers, kept increasing as per
> usual. Our uplink that feeds exclusively rural customers, leveled out
> - the usage peaked at 1600!!! I'd never seen it not peak at 2000-2400
> at night.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 6:19 AM Alexandre Petrescu
> <alexandre.petrescu at gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
> Le 23/03/2020 à 04:05, Aaron Gould a écrit :
> > I can see it now.... Business driver that moved the world
> towards multicast .... 2020 Coronavirus
>
>
> I should abstain from writing about this but I think the situation of
> virus with a crown version year 2020 is not yet understood on
> business.
>
> There are signs business would work as before: business challenges
> that
> we know worked are now tested with sponsoring open source projects on
> 3D-printed ventilators (respirator).
>
> Other signs I see seem to differ: same kind of projects but not
> looking
> for money. That might not amount for 'business' but might save lives
> equally well.
>
> It is not clear to me where it is heading to, probably a mix of
> the two.
>
> And it is not clear to me where multicast might fit into this,
> because
> presumably an Internet-connected ventilator might not have much
> data to
> send, depending of course, if one wants to put a measurement
> device on
> another side of the planet and the breath on one side, and the air
> pressure might need to be transmitted instantaneously, like 'remote
> surgery' needs to transmit haptic feedback effect across long
> distances.
>
> It's all hypothesis and speculation from my part.
>
> Alex, LF/HF 3
>
> >
> > Also, I wonder how much money would be lost by big pipe
> providers with multicast working everywhere
> >
> > -Aaron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org
> <mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org>] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> > Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 3:41 PM
> > To: nanog at nanog.org <mailto:nanog at nanog.org>
> > Subject: Re: Sunday traffic curiosity
> >
> >
> > Le 22/03/2020 à 21:31, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
> >> Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote on 22/03/2020 19:17:
> >>> What was wrong with Internet scale multicast? Why did it get
> abandoned?
> >> there wasn't any problem with inter-domain multicast that
> couldn't be
> >> resolved by handing over to level 3 engineering and the vendor's
> >> support escalation team.
> >>
> >> But then again, there weren't many problems with inter-domain
> >> multicast that could be resolved without handing over to level 3
> >> engineering and the vendor's support escalation team.
> >>
> >> Nick
> > For my part I speculate multicast did not take off at any level
> (inter
> > domain, intra domain) because pipes grew larger (more bandwidth)
> faster
> > than uses ever needed. Even now, I dont hear problems of
> bandwidth from
> > some end users, like friends using netflix. I do hear in media that
> > there _might_ be an issue of capacity, but I did not hear that
> from end
> > users.
> >
> > On another hand, link-local multicast does seem to work ok, at least
> > with IPv6. The problem it solves there is not related to the
> width of
> > the pipe, but more to resistance against 'storms' that were
> witnessed
> > during ARP storms. I could guess that Ethernet pipes are now so
> large
> > they could accomodate many forms of ARP storms, but for one
> reason or
> > another IPv6 ND has multicast and no broadcast. It might even be a
> > problem in the name, in that it is named 'IPv6 multicast ND' but
> > underlying is often implemented with pure broadcast and local
> filters.
> >
> > If the capacity is reached and if end users need more, then
> there are
> > two alternative solutions: grow capacity unicast (e.g. 1Tb/s
> Ethernet)
> > or multicast; it's useless to do both. If we cant do 1 Tb/s
> Ethernet
> > ('apocalypse'Â was called by some?) then we'll do multicast.
> >
> > I think,
> >
> > Alex, LF/HF 3
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20200323/b780decc/attachment.html>