[ILUG] Free software for .pando files?
watty at eircom.net
Fri Sep 7 13:19:03 IST 2007
paul at clubi.ie wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Thomas Bridge wrote:
>> The entire thrust of my comments have been aimed at the position that
>> as a cost of managing and routing P2P traffic, transit is not
>> particularly high on the list. I've never suggested there were
>> problems with using transit (by which I include peering with other
> So there are no problems - at least, nothing mentioned by me or the
> other two posters so far is a problem.
> How about going into detail as to what (if any) problems P2P is
> causing ISPs, with respect to load particularly. That'd be far more
> productive application of your operational experience than this
Basically there are 3 areas where assumptions are made about traffic,
similar to capacity planning for voice. No phone exchange in ISDN era
could handle more than a fraction of users simultaneously. Sometimes an
"engaged" tone means the C.O. or Mobile network is at capacity.
Mobile internet used as fixed Internet is going to seriously wreck O2, 3
The three areas are:
1) "last Mile": The up to 8km of ADSL from DSLAM, the contended
bandwidth of Cable or Wireless sectors. Typically 10:1 to 48:1 contention
2) "backhaul" from the exchange or mast
3) connectivity between all your masts, exchanges and everyone else.
Even so called "no contention " packages are contended as it is assumed
that if you aggregtate 1000 users (say) a maximum amount of traffice is
much less than sum num Users * package per user. Infact people on 48:1
Wireless / Cable rarely see 1/48th of their speed, maybe contention
takes them down to 1/2 or 2/3rd. I'd assume very little aggregated
Backhaul is less than 10:1
P2P routing at exchange level would oly save maybe less than 1% of
backhaul. If P2P, esp TV services that use it and people don't realise
it is P2P, replaced Broadcast TV, then 10x as much backhaul is needed.
This is a very expensive thing. ISPs that have not built their own
backhaul networks will go to the wall.
Cable & Wireless will need smaller segments and cells, 10 times the capex.
So basically if IPTV replaced Broadcast TV we are looking at a basic
Broadband costing 200 Euro a month for it to work.
Of course there would be a big drive to do fibre to curb (not likely in
Rural) so in 10 year period you would eventually have 25 Euro Fibre with
20Mbps nearly uncontended (maybe 3:1) with working IPTV for Urban
Dwellers but very exepensive Rural Wireless (10Mbps @ 60 Euro 10:1
contention at best, typically 3Mbps 20:1 @ 20 euro.
Don't beleive WiMax or 4G hype. It can be fast or far but not both. To
get 20Mbps 3:1 contention wireless you need over 1/2 the UHF TV band,
about 300MHz or more. Obviously actually BROADCAST for TV is more
efficient than per person IPTV over Wireless.
So I'm for a campaign of free sat dishes. free DTT decoders and ban P2P
More information about the ILUG