
AMS-IX Breaks 4 Terabits per Second Barrier - usethis
https://ams-ix.net/newsitems/218
======
heromat
"... underlines AMS-IX’s leading position within the global Internet Exchange
Point market."

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/](https://www.de-
cix.net/about/statistics/)

~~~
felixmar
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.

[1]
[http://www.internetconsultatie.nl/wiv/reactie/828d2159-cf3c-...](http://www.internetconsultatie.nl/wiv/reactie/828d2159-cf3c-4003-83d6-09be63bedf11)

~~~
arianvanp
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.

------
porsupah
By way of historical comparison, consider that in 1992, the ULCC's
transatlantic "fat pipe" was a 1.5Mbps circuit:

[http://jam.ja.net/marketing/janet30years/images/gallery/grap...](http://jam.ja.net/marketing/janet30years/images/gallery/graphs/1992-Fig5-UK-
US-Fat-pipe-Connectivity.gif)

Or that the total traffic served by the University of Bath's website across
all of 1997 was 63MB:

[https://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/bucsha/Computing+Service+His...](https://wiki.bath.ac.uk/display/bucsha/Computing+Service+History)

~~~
JosephRedfern
Is... is that figure correct!? Conservatively, taking the number of requests
at the start of the year, we get 6 million req/year.

63 _1024_ 1024 == 66060288 bytes. 66060288/6000000 == ~110bytes/request. That
seems too small. The overhead of the HTTP request alone (without content)
would be greater than that!

~~~
porges
Something does seem funky. The website looked like this in 1997:
[http://web.archive.org/web/19970418234503id_/http://www.bath...](http://web.archive.org/web/19970418234503id_/http://www.bath.ac.uk/)
[This page is 3,780 bytes.]

In fact, you can find the server stats from back then:
[http://web.archive.org/web/19970822145424/http://www.bath.ac...](http://web.archive.org/web/19970822145424/http://www.bath.ac.uk/About/Usage/WWW/Monthly/1997-05.html)

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!

~~~
logicallee
it reads as if by order of magnitude jump you mean "megabyte to gigabyte" but
(obviously, now that I point it out) that is 3 orders of magnitude jump!

~~~
hobofan
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.

------
jakozaur
Yay. More peering at Internet Exchanges makes internet faster and cheaper.
Europe has the lowest effective cost of bandwidth:

[https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-relative-cost-of-
bandwidth-a...](https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-relative-cost-of-bandwidth-
around-the-world/)

------
Loic
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.

[0] [https://www.de-cix.net/about/statistics/](https://www.de-
cix.net/about/statistics/) (scroll a bit down)

~~~
TranceMan
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.

0:
[https://stats.linx.net/aggregate.html](https://stats.linx.net/aggregate.html)

~~~
Loic
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...

~~~
TranceMan
It's not that easy.

The peak at that European time is due to people getting home to unrestricted
Internet access - which means their device can phone home and update.

I don't believe in coincidences ;)

------
Ecco
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?

~~~
zifnab06
Usage vs capacity. I have Gbit service at home, but I'm not saturating the
link 24/7.

~~~
georgerobinson
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)?

------
rottyguy
How come we're still using bits-per-second and not bytes-per-second? Any
reason other than being historical at this point?

~~~
pmorici
Because the size of a byte isn't fixed. It is hardware dependent. There is no
definitive standard defining what the size of a byte is.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte)

~~~
rottyguy
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.

~~~
euyyn
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.

------
NietTim
Thanks to the launch of iOS 9 :) Funny to see the big bump after 19:00

------
tantalor
How is this a "barrier"?

