Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Study: Most Internet traffic bypasses tier-one networks
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 04:36:47 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo () ccr org> Date: October 13, 2009 10:41:27 PM EDT To: dave () farber netSubject: Re: [IP] Re: Study: Most Internet traffic bypasses tier-one networks
David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message: From: dewayne () warpspeed com (Dewayne Hendricks) Date: October 13, 2009 1:53:17 PM EDT To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com>Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Study: Most Internet traffic bypasses tier- one networksStudy: Most Internet traffic bypasses tier-one networks Telephony Online By Ed GubbinsThe majority of Internet traffic now goes through direct peers and does not flow through incumbent tier-one telecom networks, according to a recent report from Arbor Networks, which sells network management and security products. Tier-one incumbents were once the chief providers of connectivity between content companies like Google and local or regional broadband providers like Comcast. But over time, Google and other content providers have built out their own infrastructure, connecting more directly to end users and bypassing those tier-one intermediaries.<http://telephonyonline.com/global/news/arbor-traffic-study-081309/> RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress> ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
that is a completely wacky statement. i don't believe *anyone* knows much of anything about "most Internet traffic", other than it's carried in IP datagrams. the network operators have enough trouble making sense of their own networks. i find it hard to believe that some random 15th party has sweeping insights about the global Big-I Internet. i don't even believe it about North America. besides, that would seem to suggest that Google or Microsoft or AOL is the only destination of importance, which is hardly the case. a cosmic boat-load of bytes gets delivered by Akamai's servers, to pick one alternative at random. (yes, i know they have some of their own fabric, too.) however, if the real thesis is that more organizations are building more pipes to more places, and that is shifting traffic distributions, that's hardly headline news. it's also not a zero-sum game! the traffic flows on "tier-one" networks remains impressive and growing, based on what i hear from senior network engineers at several "tier-one" networks. the fact that some organizations have grown to the size where it becomeseconomical to build a "tier-one" network of their own should surprise nobody who's been paying attention. the fact the scale of their network and traffic satisfies the requirements for zero-dollar traffic exchange with other large networks doesn't hurt, either. it's *always* better to have a direct, one-hop path between where you are and where the packets want to go, and sometimes the economics and technology both work out to make it reasonable to do.
besides, whoever said the number of "tier-one" networks was established by either immutable historical precedent or intrinsic physical constantsof the universe? tomorrow, somebody could decide pony-up enough dollars to build yet another "tier-one" network, either nationally or trans-nationally. After all, "It's only money!" To make it easy, Forbes publishes a list of people, at least 20% of whom could probably
do it with loose change from the sofas. (grin) if they have a business plan which supports playing the game at that scale, more power to them. it's hard argue that more and better pipes is a bad idea, and if they are high-traffic paths, it's even better.as for hand-wringing because existing "tier-one" networks might "lose business" when someone like Google or AOL or Microsoft builds
their own "tier-one-scale" network, i'm not losing sleep worrying about them. if they are doing their job on the sales side, things should take care of themselves pretty quickly. and it might give someone a respite of a quarter or two in the growth of network operation expense - not the worst thing that could happen, either. just as long as networks don't sell service for less than it takes to deliver it, life will be OK. if, however, we have a repeat of 1998-2000, where prices were positively psychotic - literallyunrelated to the actual cost of building and running the networks - things can get ugly again pretty quickly as well.
-mo ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Re: Study: Most Internet traffic bypasses tier-one networks David Farber (Oct 13)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Study: Most Internet traffic bypasses tier-one networks David Farber (Oct 14)
- Re: Study: Most Internet traffic bypasses tier-one networks David Farber (Oct 15)