From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.bemta34.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta34.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C24AE3B2A4 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 05:57:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrAIsWRWlGSWpSXmKPExsXSsnPBFl2mJoF kg9srJSyOTWtktFi7eAurA5PH493LGT22XzzDFMAUxZqZl5RfkcCa8fN+QMEf8YqJkxazNzCu F+5i5OIQEtjBKLF47VkWCGcZo8TT5gZ2COc0o8TdXf3MXYycQE69xItzN9hBbBYBFYlPTU/Bb DYBA4mJP/+xgdgiApoS8/+9ArOZBSwkDt3pBerl4BAWUJO4+bwMJMwLFD734zATxEg5iYstX9 gh7CKJy5eb2EDKeQUEJf7uEIaYoiVx499LJpAws4C0xPJ/HCBhTgEziUeH2tknMArMQmiYhaR hFkLDAkbmVYzWSUWZ6RkluYmZObqGBga6hoamusaWukYGBnqJVbqJeqmluuWpxSW6RnqJ5cV6 qcXFesWVuck5KXp5qSWbGIEBnVKsfmIH49OVP/UOMUpyMCmJ8vbrCCQL8SXlp1RmJBZnxBeV5 qQWH2KU4eBQkuB9WACUEyxKTU+tSMvMAUYXTFqCg0dJhPdHIVCat7ggMbc4Mx0idYpRUUqc16 wBKCEAksgozYNrg0X0JUZZKWFeRgYGBiGegtSi3MwSVPlXjOIcjErCvBfrgKbwZOaVwE1/BbS YCWjx9Jn8IItLEhFSUg1Ms1nO/v/6ttV6XevN8xtE7+z907VebXlTTNQMs+WnjJ/cEJix4d3+ GZbbWVIXKRxS2alfYrVpVmaW1Ls5yqW8HD01n3OTFhy17p/4KfLdqj1BuT8z/NUU7Nds283+x fdQzYXOvT2rXwu+1ZPoXLnK9uoBkY6rDz+vs38bIZE+ifFoyFndWT8/VfNqe/ClbxS8f0xhwd d/nqd3tC3iVq4VWq/r8LpCYV9+LbPBz+4NZUp3clw17bq4mXr2b6n3mG+zwdk3wYfh4LIpE/+ EHLD6O+cER4ob96SDSxQUPj5+bnu5qzBN8KRYiNvPrZM3c/gYRSauTL539N+OSxmb13z41+n3 Qc/28NczmV+XuYj+4lZiKc5INNRiLipOBABgNpG3YwMAAA== X-Env-Sender: brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-570.messagelabs.com!1662026242!10680!1 X-Originating-IP: [132.185.160.180] X-SYMC-ESS-Client-Auth: outbound-route-from=pass X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 9.87.3; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 22264 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2022 09:57:22 -0000 Received: from mailout1.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk (HELO mailout1.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk) (132.185.160.180) by server-7.tower-570.messagelabs.com with ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted SMTP; 1 Sep 2022 09:57:22 -0000 Received: from gateb.lh.bbc.co.uk (gateb.kw.bbc.co.uk [132.185.132.11]) by mailout1.cwwtf.bbc.co.uk (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 2819vMma000218; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 10:57:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from mailhub1.rd.bbc.co.uk ([172.29.120.129]) by gateb.lh.bbc.co.uk (8.15.1+Sun/8.13.6) with ESMTP id 2819vLIN005676; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 10:57:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk ([132.185.128.110]:45531) by mailhub1.rd.bbc.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oTgwr-0003ib-LU; Thu, 01 Sep 2022 10:57:21 +0100 Received: (from brandon@localhost) by sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA01066; Thu, 1 Sep 2022 10:57:21 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 10:57:21 +0100 From: Brandon Butterworth To: "David P. Reed" Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net, brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk Message-ID: <20220901095721.GB29719@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk> Reply-To: brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk References: <1661977461.578310669@apps.rackspace.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1661977461.578310669@apps.rackspace.com> Subject: Re: [Starlink] CDNs in space! X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2022 09:57:24 -0000 On Wed Aug 31, 2022 at 04:24:21PM -0400, David P. Reed via Starlink wrote: > Having looked into this a lot, CDNs don't account for very much Internet traffic It is sufficient for many ISPs to host for free the VoD suppliers caches (including ours). > That doesn't mean that CDN servers don't help a fair bit I think the CDN industry, like anti virus software vendors, has done us a disservice and made themselved self perpetuating. Their goal to interpose themselves and take a chunk of cash has taken some pressure off backbone growth (and cash that would have paid for it) CDNs may have helped at the time but the 40 / 100G decision was due to delayed need for 100G (on servers but that rolls into network too) so it's hard to say if we'd have gone faster sooner or been delayed waiting for technology instead. Regardless it's left us with people feeling they need to pay CDNs for large traffic needs and that leads to slower backbone growth. > Also, CDN's need to be BIG to hold all the videos that people might > choose to watch at any particular time. They don't need to hold everything, just the sufficiently highest requested set to save enough bandwidth to be worth the expense. SSD are large now too (100TB but good luck space qualifying that). Being global is going to make that harder, eg our content is largely UK limited so is a waste of space flying over other countries. > So I'm just pointing out that the business case for CDN's in space to > merely solve Starlink's potential issues is probably not great I agree, we're just mulling over if, and why, that might change. > The idea that everyone watches TV and the same few seconds of content > of a few shows that are extraordinarily popular - well, that dog don't > hunt. It doesn't justify multicast either. People do but not on the Internet, a lot of people watch linear TV still despite the claims of Internet VoD suppliers who would have you think they are the only game now. For the BBC about 5 to 10% of viewing is VoD. We've not moved the remaining 90% to the internet yet as there is no multicast (some FTTH providers are deploying it internally though) and CDNs are a poor approximation to multicast. > So let's improve the discussion here. The Internet, for the > forseeable future, at the edge, is unicast. Forever most likely We aim to move all that linear over but slowly to allow the net to grow with it. We could not move it in one go today (though we're a step closer in the UK with the national fibre plan) except where there is multicast. In moving it people habits may change and it all becomes time dilated to VoD. > Starlink isn't a media company. It doesn't want to own all the content, > or even host all the content. Give them time. Everyone looks to move up the stack where there is more money > One thing is clear - Starlink isn't the Internet of the future. It's > filling a niche (a large one, but a niche). Yes, that's where we started some of this discussion, some think they are an alternative and for some they are as needs are diverse. brandon