Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

would ip6 help us safeing energy ?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

marc at let

Apr 26, 2008, 10:39 AM

Post #1 of 23 (785 views)
Permalink

would ip6 help us safeing energy ?

hello

i have a question :

" IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet
content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet traffic ?

Isn´t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ?

just my 2 cents

marc

--
Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment
Marc Manthey - Hildeboldplatz 1a
D - 50672 Köln - Germany
Tel.:0049-221-3558032
Mobil:0049-1577-3329231
jabber :marc[at]kgraff.net
blog : http://www.let.de
ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

adrian at creative

Apr 26, 2008, 10:57 AM

Post #2 of 23 (770 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008, Marc Manthey wrote:
> hello
>
> i have a question :
>
> " IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet
> content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet traffic ?
>
> Isn?t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ?

Some people make more money shipping more bits. They may not have
any motivation or desire to decrease traffic.

Adrian

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

marc at let

Apr 26, 2008, 11:03 AM

Post #3 of 23 (767 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

>> hello
>>
>> i have a question :
>>
>> " IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet
>> content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet
>> traffic ?
>>
>> Isn?t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ?
>
> Some people make more money shipping more bits. They may not have
> any motivation or desire to decrease traffic.

hello adrian, yes i know

but i would like to know if there is some material / links, case studys
or papers / statistics around to visualise it, for a presentation
that i am planning todo.

greetings

Marc

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

tony at lava

Apr 26, 2008, 11:42 AM

Post #4 of 23 (770 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Marc Manthey wrote:

> " IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet
> content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet traffic ?

On one hand, the amount of content that is 'live' or 'continuous' and
suitable for multicast streaming isn't s large percentage of overall
internet traffic to begin with. So the effect of moving most live content
to multicast on the Internet would have little overall effect.

However, for some live content where the audience is either very large or
concentrated on various networks, moving to multicast certainly has
significant advantages in reducing traffic on the networks closest to the
source or where the viewer concentration is high (particularly where the
viewer numbers infrequently spikes significantly higher than the average).

But network providers make their money in part by selling bandwidth. The
folks who would need to push for multicast are the live/perishable content
providers as they're the ones who'd benefit the most. But if bandwidth is
cheap they're not really gonna care.

> Isn´t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ?

It's an argument for decreasing traffic and improving network efficiency
and scalability to handle 'flash crowd events'. IPv6 has nothing to do
with it.

Antonio Querubin
whois: AQ7-ARIN

johnl at iecc

Apr 26, 2008, 11:54 AM

Post #5 of 23 (768 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

>On one hand, the amount of content that is 'live' or 'continuous' and
>suitable for multicast streaming isn't s large percentage of overall
>internet traffic to begin with. So the effect of moving most live
>content to multicast on the Internet would have little overall
>effect.

I'm wondering how much content is used TiVo style, not in real time,
but fairly soon thereafter. It might make sense to multicast feeds to
local caches so when people actually want stuff, it doesn't come all
the way across the net.

R's,
John

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

marc at let

Apr 26, 2008, 12:03 PM

Post #6 of 23 (770 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

Am 26.04.2008 um 20:42 schrieb Antonio Querubin:

> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Marc Manthey wrote:
>
>> " IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet
>> content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet
>> traffic ?
>
> On one hand, the amount of content that is 'live' or 'continuous'
> and suitable for multicast streaming isn't s large percentage of
> overall internet traffic to begin with. So the effect of moving
> most live content to multicast on the Internet would have little
> overall effect.

right, i am aware of that and i was ment as an hypothetically rant ;)

> However, for some live content where the audience is either very
> large or concentrated on various networks, moving to multicast
> certainly has significant advantages in reducing traffic on the
> networks closest to the source or where the viewer concentration is
> high (particularly where the viewer numbers infrequently spikes
> significantly higher than the average).

i am not a math genious and i am talking about for example serving

10.000 unicast streams and
10.000 multicast streams

would the multicast streams more efficient or lets say , would you
need more machines to server 10.000 unicast streams ?

> But network providers make their money in part by selling
> bandwidth. The folks who would need to push for multicast are the
> live/perishable content providers as they're the ones who'd benefit
> the most. But if bandwidth is cheap they're not really gonna care.

well , cheap is relative , i bet its cheap where google hosts the
NOCs , but its not cheap in brasil , argentinia or indonesia.

>> Isn´t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ?
>
> It's an argument for decreasing traffic and improving network
> efficiency and scalability to handle 'flash crowd events'. IPv6 has
> nothing to do with it.

thanks for your opinion.

Marc

> Antonio Querubin
> whois: AQ7-ARIN

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

jay at west

Apr 26, 2008, 12:12 PM

Post #7 of 23 (768 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

John Levine wrote:

> I'm wondering how much content is used TiVo style, not in real time,
> but fairly soon thereafter. It might make sense to multicast feeds to
> local caches so when people actually want stuff, it doesn't come all
> the way across the net.

I think the good folks at Akamai may have already thought of this. :-)

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay[at]impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

marc at let

Apr 26, 2008, 12:21 PM

Post #8 of 23 (765 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

Am 26.04.2008 um 21:12 schrieb Jay Hennigan:

> John Levine wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering how much content is used TiVo style, not in real time,
>> but fairly soon thereafter. It might make sense to multicast feeds
>> to
>> local caches so when people actually want stuff, it doesn't come all
>> the way across the net.
>
> I think the good folks at Akamai may have already thought of this. :-)

teh

http://research.microsoft.com/~ratul/akamai.html

http://www.akamai.com/html/about/management_dl.html

multicast ?

i have another theory , but i dont talk about it ;)

BUT .....someone mentioned akamai had 13.000 servers, imagine they
just need 100 would this hurt ? ;)

cheers

Marc

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

michael.dillon at bt

Apr 27, 2008, 10:21 AM

Post #9 of 23 (739 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

> > I'm wondering how much content is used TiVo style, not in
> real time,
> > but fairly soon thereafter. It might make sense to
> multicast feeds to
> > local caches so when people actually want stuff, it doesn't
> come all
> > the way across the net.
>
> I think the good folks at Akamai may have already thought of this. :-)

Akamai has built a Content Delivery Network (CDN) because they do not
have to rely on any specific ISP or any specific IP network
functionality.
If you go with IP Multicast, or MPLS P2MP(Point to MultiPoint) then you
are limited to only using ISPs who have implemented the right protocols
and who peer using those protocols. P2P is a lot like CDN because it
does not rely on any specific ISP implementation, but as a result of
being 100% free of the ISP, P2P also lacks the knowledge of the network
topology that it needs to be efficient. Of course, a content provider
could leverage P2P by predelivering its content to strategically located
sites in the network, just like they do with a CDN.

IP multicast and P2MP have routing protocols which tell them where to
send content. CDN's are either set up manually or use their own
proprietary
methods to figure out where to send content. P2P currently doesn't care
about topology because it views the net as an amorphous cloud.

NNTP, the historical firehose protocol, just floods it out
to everyone who hasn't seen it yet but actually, the consumers of
an NNTP feed have been set up statically in advance. And this static
setup does include knowledge of ISP's network topology, and knowledge
of the ISP's economic realities. I'd like to see a P2P protocol that
sets up paths dynamically, but allows for inputs as varied as those
old NNTP setups. There was also a time when LAN's had some form of
economic reality configured in, i.e. some users were only allowed
to log into the LAN during certain time periods on certain days.
Is there any ISP that wouldn't want some way to signal P2P clients
how to use spare bandwidth without ruining the network for other
paying customers?

--Michael Dillon

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

joelja at bogus

Apr 27, 2008, 11:27 AM

Post #10 of 23 (738 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

michael.dillon[at]bt.com wrote:
> NNTP, the historical firehose protocol, just floods it out
> to everyone who hasn't seen it yet but actually, the consumers of
> an NNTP feed have been set up statically in advance. And this static
> setup does include knowledge of ISP's network topology, and knowledge
> of the ISP's economic realities. I'd like to see a P2P protocol that
> sets up paths dynamically, but allows for inputs as varied as those
> old NNTP setups. There was also a time when LAN's had some form of
> economic reality configured in, i.e. some users were only allowed
> to log into the LAN during certain time periods on certain days.
> Is there any ISP that wouldn't want some way to signal P2P clients
> how to use spare bandwidth without ruining the network for other
> paying customers?

I think it's safe to assume that isps are steering p2p traffic for the
purposes of adjusting their ratios on peering and transit links...

while it lacks the intentionality of playing with the usenet
spam/warez/porn firehose a little TE to shift it from one exit to
another when you have lots of choices is presumably a useful knob to have.

Layer violations to tell applications that they should care about some
peers in their overlay network vs others seems like something with a lot
of potential uninteded consequences.

> --Michael Dillon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG[at]nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

tony at lava

Apr 27, 2008, 2:35 PM

Post #11 of 23 (733 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Marc Manthey wrote:

> i am not a math genious and i am talking about for example serving
>
> 10.000 unicast streams and
> 10.000 multicast streams
>
> would the multicast streams more efficient or lets say , would you
> need more machines to server 10.000 unicast streams ?

For 10000 concurrent unicast streams you'd need not just more servers.
You'd need a significantly different network infrastructure than something
that would have to handle only a single multicast stream.

But supporting multicast isn't without it's own problems either. Even the
destination networks would have to consider implementing IGMP and/or MLD
snooping in their layer 2 devices to obtain maximum benefit from
multicast.

Antonio Querubin
whois: AQ7-ARIN

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

marc at let

Apr 27, 2008, 2:50 PM

Post #12 of 23 (733 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

>> i am not a math genious and i am talking about for example serving
>>
>> 10.000 unicast streams and
>> 10.000 multicast streams
>>
>> would the multicast streams more efficient or lets say , would you
>> need more machines to server 10.000 unicast streams ?

hello all ,

>>
> For 10000 concurrent unicast streams you'd need not just more servers.

thanks for the partizipation on this topic , i was "theoreticly "
speaking and this was actually what i wanted to hear ;)
>

> You'd need a significantly different network infrastructure than
> something that would have to handle only a single multicast stream.
> But supporting multicast isn't without it's own problems either.
> Even the destination networks would have to consider implementing
> IGMP and/or MLD snooping in their layer 2 devices to obtain maximum
> benefit from multicast.

i was reading some papers about multicast activity on 9/11 and it was
interesting to read that it just worked even when most
of the "big player " sites went offline, so this gives me another
approach for emergency scenarios.

<http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0110/ppt/eubanks.ppt>

<http://multicast.internet2.edu/workshops/illinois/internet2-multicast-workshop-31-july-2-august-2006-1-overview.ppt
>

> Akamai has built a Content Delivery Network (CDN) because they do not
> have to rely on any specific ISP or any specific IP network
> functionality.
> If you go with IP Multicast, or MPLS P2MP(Point to MultiPoint) then
> you
> are limited to only using ISPs who have implemented the right
> protocols
> and who peer using those protocols.

so this is similar to a "wallet garden " and not what we really want ,
but i was clear about that this is actually the only idea to implement
a "new" technologie into an existing infrastructure.

regards and sorry for beeing a bit offtopic

Marc

<www.lettv.de>

> Antonio Querubin
> whois: AQ7-ARIN

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

joelja at bogus

Apr 27, 2008, 3:44 PM

Post #13 of 23 (733 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

Marc Manthey wrote:
>>> i am not a math genious and i am talking about for example serving
>>>
>>> 10.000 unicast streams and
>>> 10.000 multicast streams
>>>
>>> would the multicast streams more efficient or lets say , would you
>>> need more machines to server 10.000 unicast streams ?
>
>
> hello all ,
>
>> For 10000 concurrent unicast streams you'd need not just more servers.
>
> thanks for the partizipation on this topic , i was "theoreticly "
> speaking and this was actually what i wanted to hear ;)

Your delivery needs to be sized against demand. 12 years ago when I
started playing around with streaming on a university campus boxes like
the following were science fiction:

http://www.sun.com/servers/networking/streamingsystem/specs.xml#anchor4

As for that matter were n x 10Gb/s ethernet trunks.

To make this scale in either dimension, audience or bandwidth, the
interests of the service providers and the content creators need to be
aligned. Traditionally this has been something of a challenge for
multicast deployments. Not that it hasn't happened but it's not an
automatic win either.
>
>> You'd need a significantly different network infrastructure than
>> something that would have to handle only a single multicast stream.
>> But supporting multicast isn't without it's own problems either.
>> Even the destination networks would have to consider implementing
>> IGMP and/or MLD snooping in their layer 2 devices to obtain maximum
>> benefit from multicast.
>
> i was reading some papers about multicast activity on 9/11 and it was
> interesting to read that it just worked even when most
> of the "big player " sites went offline, so this gives me another
> approach for emergency scenarios.

The big player new sites were not take offline due to network capacity
issues but rather because their dynamic content delivery platforms
couldn't cope with the flash crowds...

Once they got rid of the dynamically generated content (per viewer page
rendering, advertising) they were back.

> <http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0110/ppt/eubanks.ppt>
>
> <http://multicast.internet2.edu/workshops/illinois/internet2-multicast-workshop-31-july-2-august-2006-1-overview.ppt
> >
>
>> Akamai has built a Content Delivery Network (CDN) because they do not
>> have to rely on any specific ISP or any specific IP network
>> functionality.
>> If you go with IP Multicast, or MPLS P2MP(Point to MultiPoint) then
>> you
>> are limited to only using ISPs who have implemented the right
>> protocols
>> and who peer using those protocols.
>
> so this is similar to a "wallet garden " and not what we really want ,
> but i was clear about that this is actually the only idea to implement
> a "new" technologie into an existing infrastructure.

A maturing internet platform my be quite successful at resisting
attempts to change it. It's entirely possible for example that evolving
the mbone would have been more successful than "going native". The mbone
was in many respects a proto p2p overlay just as ip was a overlay on the
circuit-switched pstn.

That's all behind us however, and the approach that we should drop all
the unicast streaming or p2p in favor of multicast transport because
it's greener or lighter weight is just so much tilting at windmills,
something I've done altogether to much of.

Use the tool where it makes sense and can be delivered in a timely fashion.

>
> regards and sorry for beeing a bit offtopic
>
> Marc
>
> <www.lettv.de>
>
>> Antonio Querubin
>> whois: AQ7-ARIN
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG[at]nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

dlc at lampinc

Apr 28, 2008, 6:01 AM

Post #14 of 23 (707 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

I became aware of something called espn360 last fall. I just did a
google search so I could provide a URL, but one of the top search
responses was a Aug 9, 2007 posting saying "ESPN360 Dies an
Unneccessary Death: A Lesson in Network Neutrality ..." I don't
think it's dead, though, and maybe if you don't know about it, you
can do your own google search.

I think Disney/ABC thinks they can get individual ISPs to pay them
to carry sports audio/video streams. I suppose that would be yet
another multicast stream method, assuming an ISP location had multiple
customers viewing the same stream.

Are other content providers trying to do something similar? How are
operators dealing with this? What opinions are there in the operator
community?

Mr. Dale

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

yahoo at jimpop

Apr 28, 2008, 10:44 AM

Post #15 of 23 (703 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Dale Carstensen <dlc[at]lampinc.com> wrote:
> I think Disney/ABC thinks they can get individual ISPs to pay them
> to carry sports audio/video streams. I suppose that would be yet
> another multicast stream method, assuming an ISP location had multiple
> customers viewing the same stream.
>
> Are other content providers trying to do something similar? How are
> operators dealing with this? What opinions are there in the operator
> community?

I'm not sure of the particulars, but Hulu (NBC/Universal and News
Corp) and FanCast (Comcast) seem to have an interesting relationship.
I would love to know more, but i detest reading financials. ;-)

-Jim P.

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

frnkblk at iname

Apr 28, 2008, 1:26 PM

Post #16 of 23 (704 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

Dale:

ESPN360 used to be something that internet subscribers paid for themselves,
but now it's something that ISPs (most interesting to those who are also
video providers) can offer.

If you google around you can find a pretty good Wikipedia page on ESPN360.

I looked into this for our operations because we do both (internet and
video). The price was reasonable and you only pay on the number of internet
subs that meet their minimum performance standards. Since 50% of our user
base is at 128/128 kbps, that's a lot of subscribers we didn't need to pay
for. In the end, I didn't get buy-in from the rest of the management team
into adding this. I think they perceived (and probably correctly so) that
too few of our users would actually *use* it. If I could get even 2% of our
customer base seriously interested I think we would move on this.

BTW, there's no multicast (at lease from Disney/ABC directly) involved.
It's just another unicast video stream like YouTube.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Carstensen [mailto:dlc[at]lampinc.com]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:02 AM
To: nanog[at]nanog.org
Subject: Re: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ?

I became aware of something called espn360 last fall. I just did a
google search so I could provide a URL, but one of the top search
responses was a Aug 9, 2007 posting saying "ESPN360 Dies an
Unneccessary Death: A Lesson in Network Neutrality ..." I don't
think it's dead, though, and maybe if you don't know about it, you
can do your own google search.

I think Disney/ABC thinks they can get individual ISPs to pay them
to carry sports audio/video streams. I suppose that would be yet
another multicast stream method, assuming an ISP location had multiple
customers viewing the same stream.

Are other content providers trying to do something similar? How are
operators dealing with this? What opinions are there in the operator
community?

Mr. Dale

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

Marc.Williams at neustar

Apr 28, 2008, 2:43 PM

Post #17 of 23 (701 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

> I looked into this for our operations because we do both
> (internet and video). The price was reasonable

That's interesting. Under the commercial television broadcast model of
American networks such as ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, The CW and MyNetworkTV,
affiliates give up portions of their local advertising airtime in
exchange for network programming.

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

jmamodio at gmail

Apr 29, 2008, 9:31 AM

Post #18 of 23 (689 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

> Isn´t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ?
>
besides the multicast argument, ipv6 and the transition to it
with dual stacks, etc, etc, afaik will require more horsepower
and memory to handle routing info/updates, don't think so
it will reduce energy consumption au contraire.

one place where major improvements can be made is to
increase the efficiency of switched power supplies on servers
and other gear installed in large datacenters.

My .02
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

marc at let

Apr 29, 2008, 2:48 PM

Post #19 of 23 (686 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

Am 29.04.2008 um 18:31 schrieb Jorge Amodio:
> besides the multicast argument,

hi Jorge , all

ok, i was talking about a "campus" installation

imagine you want to broadcast a live event so
10.000 unicast streams and 10.000 multicast stream for example.

from what toni replyed , you need less horsepower with the multicast
streams

> For 10000 concurrent unicast streams you'd need not just more servers.

but would like to know how this could be calculated.

my 00.2 ;)

marc

-
Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment
Marc Manthey - Hildeboldplatz 1a
D - 50672 Köln - Germany
Tel.:0049-221-3558032
Mobil:0049-1577-3329231
jabber :marc[at]kgraff.net
blog : http://www.let.de
ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org

Klarmachen zum Ändern!
http://www.piratenpartei-koeln.de

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

marc at let

May 4, 2008, 3:34 PM

Post #20 of 23 (619 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

evening all ,

found an related article about the power consumtion saving in ip6.

-

Up to 300 Megawatt Worth of Keepalive Messages to be Saved by IPv6?

http://www.circleid.com/posts/81072_megawatts_keepalive_ipv6/

http://www.niksula.hut.fi/~peronen/publications/haverinen_siren_eronen_vtc2007.pdf

still interested in other links and publications

regards

Marc

--
"Use your imagination not to scare yourself to death
but to inspire yourself to life."

Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment
Marc Manthey - head of research and innovation
Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany
Tel.:0049-221-3558032
Mobil:0049-1577-3329231
jabber :marc[at]kgraff.net
blog : http://www.let.de
ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org
xing : https://www.xing.com/profile/Marc_Manthey
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

adrian at creative

May 4, 2008, 3:57 PM

Post #21 of 23 (620 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

On Mon, May 05, 2008, Marc Manthey wrote:
> evening all ,
>
> found an related article about the power consumtion saving in ip6.
>
> -
>
> Up to 300 Megawatt Worth of Keepalive Messages to be Saved by IPv6?
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/81072_megawatts_keepalive_ipv6/
>
> http://www.niksula.hut.fi/~peronen/publications/haverinen_siren_eronen_vtc2007.pdf

I'd seriously be looking at making current -software- run more efficiently
before counting ipv6-related power savings.

Adrian

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

joelja at bogus

May 4, 2008, 5:59 PM

Post #22 of 23 (609 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

Notwithstanding that fact that keepalives are a huge issue for tiny
battery powered devices. There's a false economy in assuming those
packets wouldn't have to be sent with IPV6...

Marc Manthey wrote:
> evening all ,
>
> found an related article about the power consumtion saving in ip6.
>
> -
>
> Up to 300 Megawatt Worth of Keepalive Messages to be Saved by IPv6?
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/81072_megawatts_keepalive_ipv6/
>
> http://www.niksula.hut.fi/~peronen/publications/haverinen_siren_eronen_vtc2007.pdf
>
>
> still interested in other links and publications
>
>
> regards
>
> Marc
>
> --
> "Use your imagination not to scare yourself to death
> but to inspire yourself to life."
>
> Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment
> Marc Manthey - head of research and innovation
> Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany
> Tel.:0049-221-3558032
> Mobil:0049-1577-3329231
> jabber :marc[at]kgraff.net
> blog : http://www.let.de
> ipv6 http://www.ipsix.org
> xing : https://www.xing.com/profile/Marc_Manthey
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG[at]nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
>

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

randy at psg

May 4, 2008, 6:47 PM

Post #23 of 23 (609 views)
Permalink

Re: would ip6 help us safeing energy ? [In reply to]

> found an related article about the power consumtion saving in ip6.

no, you found an article about bad nat design in a market lacking the
ability to stanardize on a clean one.

if you look, you can also find statements by the same folk explaining
how ipv6 will help prevent car accidents involving falling rocks. yes,
i am serious.

note that i work very hard on ipv6 deployment. i just don't encourage
or support marketing insanity.

randy

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG[at]nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com