5 ms·

YouTube's Fine - Analysts Don't Understand Internet Peering

60 points by iamelgringo 18y ago

inconvenient 18y ago
I don't get this. Wouldn't most of YouTube's traffic be downstream from Google's servers to the hoards of individual internet viewers all over the world? How exactly does peering help?
- eugenejen 18y ago
  If Google operates their own backbones, then Google's peering agreement with other tier 1 backbone providers helps. The peering agreement allows packets passed in/out from Google with other providers without extra bandwidth charge.
  - bilbo0s 18y ago
    Until, of course, peering agreements are renegotiated. I think this is where other bandwidth providers will stick it to Google. They only have leverage for the moment. It's like falling off a cliff. Everyone thinks . . . "so far . . . so good" on the way down. But it's not the period that you are falling that is important, it's how you stop when you reach the bottom.
    - donaldc 18y ago
      Doubtful. Google's been around for years now. If the bandwidth providers were going to stick it to Google, they already would have. Furthermore, Google and the bandwidth provider both stand to gain by cutting out any middlemen (i.e. tier 1 providers), so they both have an incentive to be reasonable.
- wmf 18y ago
  Google peers with many broadband ISPs.
  - mblakele 18y ago
    Indeed they do: https://www.peeringdb.com/private/participant_view.php?id=433 https://www.peeringdb.com/private/participant_view.php?id=43... I had no idea so much information was publicly available.
  - jganetsk 18y ago
    It makes perfect sense that Google peers with downstream ISPs. However, I think Mr. Turner's analysis is wrong. It is in the interest of the Tier 1s to continue to gouge Google. YouTube pushes out way more bytes out than it pulls in... even including video uploads, client-made HTTP GETs, and TCP ACKs. This asymmetry pokes holes in the presented argument (assuming that those in a peering agreement measure bandwidth in bytes per second and not packets per second, and that both parties strive for balanced bandwidth usage). If Google were to route all traffic through a single Tier 1... the latter would be completely screwed. The ISP would constantly have to push all these YouTube bytes out to all the other Tier 1s, and it's all the other networks that get the leverage. The only leverage for this clever Tier 1 is in exploiting their position as the exclusive route into Google. They may even be tempted to extort the other networks... pay lots of money or your user don't get access to Google. This would barely work. All the remaining Tier 1s would simply stop by the Googleplex to say "hi guys, here's a bunch of half-duplex links. We are going to push bytes to you but not take any from you. Ciao". Google, of course, would agree. This lone Tier 1 is effectively bypassed, and it still has to find a way to get its massive quantity of upstream traffic into everyone's networks. A Tier 1 might offer Google a special deal if they feel they are underutilizing their uplinks, and therefore want to push the peering situation back into equilibrium. But, they would definitely put a cap on Google's bandwidth usage, so as to guarantee that things don't swing too far the other way. It definitely makes sense for Google to peer with the downstream guys (the Tier 2s and 3s). This reduces costs for both parties. The ISP doesn't have to pay for upstream transit to route to Google, and Google doesn't have to pay for upstream transit to route into the ISP. It's a win-win situation. And, it also improves user experience by decreasing latency, a big priority for Google.
abstractbill 18y ago
I was surprised by how many people took the Credit Suisse analysis seriously (we peer heavily at justin.tv too).
- krakensden 18y ago
  You probably can't say, but just in case you can- what's the ballpark of your bandwidth costs?
  - abstractbill 18y ago
    Sorry, you guessed right - all I can say is it's a lot less than it would be if we didn't do any peering.
- skorgu 18y ago
  Each time the traditional media butchers a technical story I'm astonished anew. And then I get a second round of surprise when everyone accepts it so uncritically because it was in a non-blog context.
- volida 18y ago
  I don't know about your costs, but you have seem to have something in common, you both exploit copyrighted content. Maybe soon enough you'll have a lawsit in common.
  - volida 18y ago
    I expected down voting, so for those who of you who doubt what I said, here is a sample of some live evidence: http://www.justin.tv/search?q=soccer&commit=Search http://www.justin.tv/search?q=soccer&commit=Search
    - smanek 18y ago
      You are wrong. Youtube/Justin.tv don't "exploit copyright content." The law explicitly allows what they do. The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act creates a safe harbor for online service providers. It specifically says that those sort of sites are not liable for infringement as long as they take down content at the copyright holder's request (i.e., when the copyright holder issues a DMCA takedown notice). There are a lot of details which you can read about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_L.... Youtube/Justin have just as much right to host user uploaded content as copyright holders do to enforce their rights.
krakensden 18y ago
Can anyone find the original Credit-Suisse article? Are their estimates based on pure ISP costs, or do they incorporate the cost of running the infrastructure to serve that content? Assuming he's right about Google's data transfer costs (I... know next to nothing about how the backbones operate), the amount of Google infrastructure dedicated to running Youtube can't be that cheap. That's a huge amount of data, that needs to be distributed to all their various local data centers, plus developers working full time on the project, etc. I guess what I'm saying is, just because it's easy to want the bean counters to be wrong, doesn't mean they are. One of the articles linked to from the main article says Credit Suisse estimated Google's bandwith at 30 million megabits/second. At google appengine prices, that would cost ~ $440 per second (I'm assuming non-SI units). Presumably google's real costs are much lower than that, but still...
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

60 points by iamelgringo 18y ago

I don't get this. Wouldn't most of YouTube's traffic be downstream from Google's servers to the hoards of individual internet viewers all over the world? How exactly does peering help?

eugenejen 18y ago
If Google operates their own backbones, then Google's peering agreement with other tier 1 backbone providers helps. The peering agreement allows packets passed in/out from Google with other providers without extra bandwidth charge.
- bilbo0s 18y ago
  Until, of course, peering agreements are renegotiated. I think this is where other bandwidth providers will stick it to Google. They only have leverage for the moment. It's like falling off a cliff. Everyone thinks . . . "so far . . . so good" on the way down. But it's not the period that you are falling that is important, it's how you stop when you reach the bottom.
  - donaldc 18y ago
    Doubtful. Google's been around for years now. If the bandwidth providers were going to stick it to Google, they already would have. Furthermore, Google and the bandwidth provider both stand to gain by cutting out any middlemen (i.e. tier 1 providers), so they both have an incentive to be reasonable.
wmf 18y ago
Google peers with many broadband ISPs.
- mblakele 18y ago
  Indeed they do: https://www.peeringdb.com/private/participant_view.php?id=433 https://www.peeringdb.com/private/participant_view.php?id=43... I had no idea so much information was publicly available.
- jganetsk 18y ago
  It makes perfect sense that Google peers with downstream ISPs. However, I think Mr. Turner's analysis is wrong. It is in the interest of the Tier 1s to continue to gouge Google. YouTube pushes out way more bytes out than it pulls in... even including video uploads, client-made HTTP GETs, and TCP ACKs. This asymmetry pokes holes in the presented argument (assuming that those in a peering agreement measure bandwidth in bytes per second and not packets per second, and that both parties strive for balanced bandwidth usage). If Google were to route all traffic through a single Tier 1... the latter would be completely screwed. The ISP would constantly have to push all these YouTube bytes out to all the other Tier 1s, and it's all the other networks that get the leverage. The only leverage for this clever Tier 1 is in exploiting their position as the exclusive route into Google. They may even be tempted to extort the other networks... pay lots of money or your user don't get access to Google. This would barely work. All the remaining Tier 1s would simply stop by the Googleplex to say "hi guys, here's a bunch of half-duplex links. We are going to push bytes to you but not take any from you. Ciao". Google, of course, would agree. This lone Tier 1 is effectively bypassed, and it still has to find a way to get its massive quantity of upstream traffic into everyone's networks. A Tier 1 might offer Google a special deal if they feel they are underutilizing their uplinks, and therefore want to push the peering situation back into equilibrium. But, they would definitely put a cap on Google's bandwidth usage, so as to guarantee that things don't swing too far the other way. It definitely makes sense for Google to peer with the downstream guys (the Tier 2s and 3s). This reduces costs for both parties. The ISP doesn't have to pay for upstream transit to route to Google, and Google doesn't have to pay for upstream transit to route into the ISP. It's a win-win situation. And, it also improves user experience by decreasing latency, a big priority for Google.

abstractbill 18y ago

I was surprised by how many people took the Credit Suisse analysis seriously (we peer heavily at justin.tv too).

krakensden 18y ago
You probably can't say, but just in case you can- what's the ballpark of your bandwidth costs?
- abstractbill 18y ago
  Sorry, you guessed right - all I can say is it's a lot less than it would be if we didn't do any peering.
skorgu 18y ago
Each time the traditional media butchers a technical story I'm astonished anew. And then I get a second round of surprise when everyone accepts it so uncritically because it was in a non-blog context.
volida 18y ago
I don't know about your costs, but you have seem to have something in common, you both exploit copyrighted content. Maybe soon enough you'll have a lawsit in common.
- volida 18y ago
  I expected down voting, so for those who of you who doubt what I said, here is a sample of some live evidence: http://www.justin.tv/search?q=soccer&commit=Search http://www.justin.tv/search?q=soccer&commit=Search
  - smanek 18y ago
    You are wrong. Youtube/Justin.tv don't "exploit copyright content." The law explicitly allows what they do. The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act creates a safe harbor for online service providers. It specifically says that those sort of sites are not liable for infringement as long as they take down content at the copyright holder's request (i.e., when the copyright holder issues a DMCA takedown notice). There are a lot of details which you can read about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_L.... Youtube/Justin have just as much right to host user uploaded content as copyright holders do to enforce their rights.

krakensden 18y ago

Can anyone find the original Credit-Suisse article? Are their estimates based on pure ISP costs, or do they incorporate the cost of running the infrastructure to serve that content? Assuming he's right about Google's data transfer costs (I... know next to nothing about how the backbones operate), the amount of Google infrastructure dedicated to running Youtube can't be that cheap. That's a huge amount of data, that needs to be distributed to all their various local data centers, plus developers working full time on the project, etc. I guess what I'm saying is, just because it's easy to want the bean counters to be wrong, doesn't mean they are. One of the articles linked to from the main article says Credit Suisse estimated Google's bandwith at 30 million megabits/second. At google appengine prices, that would cost ~ $440 per second (I'm assuming non-SI units). Presumably google's real costs are much lower than that, but still...

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]