Re: Routed optical networks

[Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

Eduard, you know the answer as well as I do, right :) ?

Here's my answer: I think that Cisco can only estimate (let's not say
speculate, it has pretty bad connotations) what comes out of access
networks.

No offence meant, I hope none is taken.

Cheers,

Etienne

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:47 PM Vasilenko Eduard <
vasilenko.eduard () huawei com> wrote:

> Hi Etienne,
>
> Look carefully what you have shown to me. It is a only speculation again
> (“predictions”). It is just a table with a collection of all predictions in
> the past. Moreover, averaged between years.
>
> I was asking for real data from the past 5 years. Are you sure that VNI
> has it?
>
>
>
> If you would find real historical data in VNI, then we would be capable to
> check the table that you have shown: was the guessing right?
>
> I strongly suspect an answer.
>
>
>
> Eduard
>
> *From:* Etienne-Victor Depasquale [mailto:edepa () ieee org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2023 2:46 PM
> *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
> *Cc:* Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com>; Phil Bedard <bedard.phil () gmail com>;
> NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> *Subject:* Re: Routed optical networks
>
>
>
> To clarify the table I linked to in the previous email:
>
>
>
> Cisco estimates IP traffic exchanged over the access network by both
> businesses and consumers with:
>
>
> • endpoints over managed networks and
> • endpoints over unmanaged networks (“Internet traffic”).
>
>
> Both the mobile access network and the fixed access network are
> considered.
>
>
>
> Cisco considers IP traffic over managed networks to be characterized by
> passage through a single service provider.
>
> Without explicitly referring to quality of service (QoS),
>
> the implication is clearly that the traffic is controlled to meet the QoS
> demanded by the service level agreement (SLA).
>
>
>
> In contrast, “Internet traffic” crosses provider domains;
>
> typically, this traffic is delivered on the basis of providers’ best
> effort.
>
> These two kinds of traffic complement one another and collectively are
> referred to as total global IP traffic.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Etienne
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:37 PM Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa () ieee org>
> wrote:
>
> Historically, this is what VNI has claimed
> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JUG70rbZfaVHC3Z2HrECMOXJ2OnmtuxV/view?usp=sharing>
> .
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Etienne
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:25 PM Vasilenko Eduard <
> vasilenko.eduard () huawei com> wrote:
>
> I did investigate traffic for every Carrier while dealing with it as a
> consultant (repeated many dozens of times).
>
> I have seen over a decade how traffic growth dropped year-over-year (from
> 60% to 25% in 2019 when I dropped this activity in 2020 – covid blocked
> travel).
>
> Sometimes I talk to old connections and they confirm that it is even less
> now.
>
> In rear cases, It is typically possible to find this information on the
> public Internet (I remember the case when Google disclosed traffic for
> Pakistan at the conference with the explanation that 30% is attributed to
> new subscribers, and an additional +30% is to more heavy content per
> subscriber).
>
> But mostly, it was confidential information from a discussion with
> Carriers – they all know very well their traffic growth.
>
> In general, traffic stat is pretty confidential. I did not have the
> motivation to aggregate it.
>
>
>
> Sandvine is not representative of global traffic because DPI is installed
> mostly for Mobiles. But Mobile subscriber is 10x less than fixed on traffic
> – it is not the biggest source. Moreover, Mobiles would look better growing
> because the limiting factor was on technology (5G proposed more than 4G, 4G
> proposed much more than 3G) – it would probably would less disruptive in
> the future.
>
> Fixed Carriers do not pay DPI premiums. And rarely share their traffic
> publicly. Sandvine could not see it.
>
>
>
> VNI is claiming so many things. Please show where exactly they show
> traffic growth (I am not interested in prediction speculations). Is it
> possible to understand CAGR for the 5 last years? Is it declining or
> growing? (traffic itself is for sure still growing)
>
>
>
> Of course, the disruption could come at any year and add a new S-curve
> (Metaverse?). But disruption is by definition not predictable.
>
>
>
> PS: Everything above and below in this thread is just my personal opinion.
>
>
>
> Eduard
>
> *From:* Etienne-Victor Depasquale [mailto:edepa () ieee org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2023 12:48 PM
> *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
> *Cc:* Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com>; Phil Bedard <bedard.phil () gmail com>;
> NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> *Subject:* Re: Routed optical networks
>
>
>
> Eduard, academics cite the VNI (and the Sandvine Global reports).
>
>
>
> Do you know of alternative sources that show traffic growth data you're
> more comfortable with?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Etienne
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 9:34 AM Vasilenko Eduard <
> vasilenko.eduard () huawei com> wrote:
>
> But it is speculation, not a trend yet.
>
> I remember 10y ago every presentation started from the claim that 100B of
> IoT would drive XXX traffic. It did not happen.
>
> Now we see presentations that AI would be talking to AI that generates
> YYYY traffic.
>
> Maybe some technology would push traffic next S-curve, maybe not. It is
> still speculation.
>
>
>
> The traffic growth was stimulated (despite all VNIs) by 1) new
> subscribers, 2) video quality for subscribers. Nothing else yet.
>
> It is almost finished for both trends. We are close to the plateau of
> these S-curves.
>
> For some years (2013-2020) I was carefully looking at numbers for many
> countries: it was always possible to split CAGR for these 2 components. The
> video part was extremely consistent between countries. The subscriber part
> was 100% proportional to subscriber CAGR.
>
> Everything else up to now was “marketing” to say it mildly.
>
>
>
> Reminder: nothing in nature could grow indefinitely. The limit always
> exists. It is only a question of when.
>
>
>
> PS: Of course, marketing people could draw you any traffic growth – it
> depends just on the marketing budget.
>
>
>
> Eduard
>
> *From:* Dave Taht [mailto:dave.taht () gmail com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 9, 2023 11:41 PM
> *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
> *Cc:* Phil Bedard <bedard.phil () gmail com>; Etienne-Victor Depasquale <
> edepa () ieee org>; NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> *Subject:* Re: Routed optical networks
>
>
>
> Up until this moment I was feeling that my take on the decline of traffic
> growth was somewhat isolated, in that I have long felt that we are nearing
> the top of the S curve of the data we humans can create and consume. About
> the only source of future traffic growth I can think of comes from getting
> more humans online, and that is a mere another doubling.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, predictions such as 640k should be enough for everyone
> did not pan out.
>
>
>
> On the gripping hand, there has been an explosion of LLM stuff of late,
> with enormous models being widely distributed in just the past month:
>
>
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/930939/
>
>
>
> Could the AIs takeoff lead to a resumption of traffic growth? I still
> don´t think so...
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:59 PM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <
> nanog () nanog org> wrote:
>
> Disclaimer: Metaverse has not changed Metro traffic yet. Then …
>
>
>
> I am puzzled when people talk about 400GE and Tbps in the Mero context.
>
> For historical reasons, Metro is still about 2*2*10GE (one “2” for
> redundancy, another “2” for capacity) in the majority of cases worldwide.
>
> How many BRASes serve more than 40000/1.5=27k users in the busy hour?
>
> It means that 50GE is the best interface now for the majority of cases.
> 2*50GE=100Gbps is good room for growth.
>
> Of course, exceptions could be. I know BRAS that handles 86k subscribers
> (do not recommend anybody to push the limits – it was so painful).
>
>
>
> We have just 2 eyes and look at video content about 22h per week (on
> average). Our eyes do not permit us to see resolution better than
> particular for chosen distance (4k for typical TV, HD for smartphones, and
> so on). Color depth 10bits is enough for the majority, 12bits is sure
> enough for everybody. 120 frames/sec is enough for everybody. It would
> never change – it is our genetics.
>
> Fortunately for Carriers, the traffic has a limit. You have probably seen
> that every year traffic growth % is decreasing. The Internet is stabilizing
> and approaching the plateau.
>
> How much growth is still awaiting us? 1.5? 1.4? It needs separate
> research. The result would be tailored for whom would pay for the research.
>
> IMHO: It is not mandatory that 100GE would become massive in the metro. (I
> know that 100GE is already massive in the DC CLOS)
>
>
>
> Additionally, who would pay for this traffic growth? It also limits
> traffic at some point.
>
> I hope it would happen after we would get our 22h/4k/12bit/120hz.
>
>
>
> Now, you could argue that Metaverse would jump and multiply traffic by an
> additional 2x or 3x. Then 400GE may be needed.
>
> Sorry, but it is speculation yet. It is not a trend like the current
> (declining) traffic growth.
>
>
>
> Ed/
>
> *From:* NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei.com () nanog org]
> *On Behalf Of *Phil Bedard
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 4, 2023 8:32 PM
> *To:* Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa () ieee org>; NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> *Subject:* Re: Routed optical networks
>
>
>
> It’s not necessarily metro specific although the metro networks could lend
> themselves to overall optimizations.
>
>
>
> The adoption of ZR/ZR+ IPoWDM currently somewhat corresponds with your
> adoption of 400G since today they require a QDD port.   There are 100G QDD
> ports but that’s not all that popular yet.   Of course there is work to do
> something similar in QSFP28 if the power can be reduced to what is
> supported by an existing QSFP28 port in most devices.   In larger networks
> with higher speed requirements and moving to 400G with QDD, using the DCO
> optics for connecting routers is kind of a no-brainer vs. a traditional
> muxponder.   Whether that’s over a ROADM based optical network or not,
> especially at metro/regional distances.
>
>
>
> There are very large deployments of IPoDWDM over passive DWDM or dark
> fiber for access and aggregation networks where the aggregate required
> bandwidth doesn’t exceed the capabilities of those optics.  It’s been done
> at 10G for many years.  With the advent of pluggable EDFA amplifiers, you
> can even build links up to 120km* (perfect dark fiber)  carrying tens of
> terabits of traffic without any additional active optical equipment.
>
>
>
> It’s my personal opinion we aren’t to the days yet of where we can simply
> build an all packet network with no photonic switching that carries all
> services, but eventually (random # of years) it gets there for many
> networks.  There are also always going to be high performance applications
> for transponders where pluggable optics aren’t a good fit.
>
>
>
> Carrying high speed private line/wavelength type services as well is a
> different topic than interconnecting IP devices.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *NANOG <nanog-bounces+bedard.phil=gmail.com () nanog org> on behalf
> of Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> *Date: *Monday, May 1, 2023 at 2:30 PM
> *To: *NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> *Subject: *Routed optical networks
>
> Hello folks,
>
>
>
> Simple question: does "routed optical networks" have a clear meaning in
> the metro area context, or not?
>
>
>
> Put differently: does it call to mind a well-defined stack of technologies
> in the control and data planes of metro-area networks?
>
>
>
> I'm asking because I'm having some thoughts about the clarity of this
> term, in the process of carrying out a qualitative survey of the results of
> the metro-area networks survey.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Etienne
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
> Assistant Lecturer
> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
> University of Malta
>
> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Podcast:
> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910227111937/
>
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
> Assistant Lecturer
> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
> University of Malta
>
> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
> Assistant Lecturer
> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
> University of Malta
>
> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
> Assistant Lecturer
> Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
> Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
> University of Malta
>
> Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale


-- 
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale