And the gap will only increase if the proposed intelligence services act (Wiv20xx) is passed by parliament. The act allows the intelligence services to mass surveillance all electronic communication and forces all service providers (not just telecom providers) to pay for surveillance equipment.
Besides being morally wrong to mass surveillance everyone when the current act already allows the intelligence services to monitor the few thousand potential terrorists and spies, it would also hurt the Dutch economy. International companies would move their European cloud infrastucture to e.g. Germany and Dutch startups providing a communication service (i.e. almost any startup) would be less trusted by their users and run the risk of paying for expensive surveillance equipment.
If you are Dutch i recommend reading the reaction of Nederland ICT [1] to the proposed act.
The MP who proposed the law has lost support of his party recently (The Labor party) to keep on pushing the law in current form.
Also the CTIVD ,the organization that supervises the AIVD (The dutch NSA) has told the law isn't possible to implement in current form.
So the chance that it will pass it pretty small. Though they'll probably juggle around some words and try again so we should stay alert. Luckily it has gotten quite some media attention and people seem to be aware that the law is a bad idea.
Well, to be fair, AMS-IX is located around the Amsterdam Area (a circle of around 30 km orso), while DE-CIX has locations in the US as well.
I'm not familiar with the specifics, but based on these locations, I'd say AMS-IX is the biggest internet exchange serving europe.
Both DE-CIX and AMS-IX have exchanges in NYC now. Both have actually started branching out and building exchanges in many new cities. The traffic levels they're talking about are specific to both of their home markets (Amsterdam/Frankfurt).
The DE-CIX graph seems to be about the Frankfurt exchange. AMS-IX doesn't just serve the Amsterdam area, it's where many undersea cables from North America and the UK enter the European mainland.
I'm more surprised that 'List of Internet exchange points' isn't dominated by North American and Asian exchanges. Do they have a larger number of smaller ones?
My traffic in philippines would actually go out of the country and back in, occasionally via los angeles (like 500ms+) because the incumbent monopoly telco refuses to peer with any other isp, so if you don't use them your traffic is intentionally screwed [there is an IX there for small ISPs, the 99% market share one just doesn't peer there]
Aside from singapore, every other country has something approaching this level of fucked-ness - HK to CN traffic often goes via LA/seattle, TW to CN traffic often goes via LA/seattle, all of china telecom's peering links are oversubscribed to death anyway and fall over during peak hours, a lot of the SEA traffic i've seen traverses singapore or worse, even if it's entirely domestic bound
no, Amsterdam does not have the size amount of peering it does because of submarine cable landings, and DE-CIX is largest by bits exchanged in one single metro area (Frankfurt)
Is... is that figure correct!? Conservatively, taking the number of requests at the start of the year, we get 6 million req/year.
6310241024 == 66060288 bytes. 66060288/6000000 == ~110bytes/request. That seems too small. The overhead of the HTTP request alone (without content) would be greater than that!
This says that it transferred "3 599 Mbytes" and there were "728 506" requests. Interpreting "3 599" as 3.599 gives 4.94 bytes per request, which is absurd. It must be 3.6 GB, making each response just under 5 kB. This seems much more reasonable.
So the number on that page should probably be interpreted as 63 GB, which is reasonable if we assume the site became more popular later in the year, as the original source suggests (3.6 GB*12 = 43.2 GB, and the stats are from May).
Also notice the following year (1998) says 126 MBytes and in 1999, 197 GB. That's an order of magnitude jump!
I think he is correct. An order of magnitude change for (most) SI units is a change by a factor of 10, while it is a change by a factor of 1024 for bytes.
This is really interesting to see the 19h -> 24h increases in traffic. Most likely due to online streaming, this is a predictable sharp increases on the Hamburg and Munich POP[0] for DECIX.
More likely due to the release of iOS9. A couple of other European Internet exchanges also peaked last night [0].
In the past few years Apple have been embracing public peering much more - according to PeeringDB they are at 37 locations with many having multiple 100G connections.
If you look at the weekly statistics, you see the bump everyday. If iOS is putting a concentrated load on the network from 20h to 24h, they could redesign a bit their update system to spread a bit more during the day...
Those numbers seem very low to me, I feel like something doesn't add up. Indeed, 1 GBits FTTx offers from FAI are getting more and more widespread, so that would mean that the peak traffic is around only 4000 simultaneous users?
Genuine question! Have you ever been able to saturate your connection with a single TCP stream or did it require multiple streams (possibly from multiple devices)?
I would be surprised if, practically speaking, 8bits <> 1 byte for 99.99% of all general applications. My feeling is that the .01% can do the math so the other 99.99% don't have to.
Yeah but specifically for networking, error-detecting and error-correcting codes can make a byte at the app level > 8 bits on the wire, transparently. The capacity of the hardware is independent of that, so they talk in bauds.
Data is send serially over a fiber or copper line, bit by bit, not per byte. Also because bytes can be compressed, bits cannot, so giving the throughput in bits-per-second is an absolute value.
Bytes can be compressed in sequence not in singularity (just as bits). I mean why don't we measure storage in bits and not bytes? Just seems unnecessarily confusing.
Actually, memory chips (NAND flash, DRAM) are usually specified in terms of bits, usually using a lowercase 'b' to denote 'bit'.
Online sellers have used this to their advantage, selling e.g. "1Gb" flash drives, with real 1 gigabit flash chips, which turn out to be ~128 megabytes.
How long does it take to transfer a gigabyte file? Sure we can do the math but why (considering the average person)? Maybe there should be a common core revolution in engineering :-)
I can't do the exact math for that without looking up up a bunch of stuff.
I don't how much I need to subtract for the multiple headers and other overhead, how fast the transfer rate gets to the maximum, how many packages get lost, what other factors of the congestion control algorithms might impact my transfer etc
I just divide by 10. How long will it take to download a 100MB file with a 100Mbps connection? Approximately 10 seconds. I know that the theoretical maximum is 8 seconds, but practical factors like flow control and all that more or less cancel out the 20% error.
You are missing my point: the raw bit rate of the network is not the rate of file transfers. There is a bunch of logic around the raw bits in the wire that make it mich more complicated than dividing by 8
Yeah, i.e. DE-CIX is constantly hitting the 4 Tbps barrier for quite some time now and is trending towards 5 Tbps.
https://www.de-cix.net/about/statistics/