[p2p-research] Application_Content_Infrastructure, important development

Mon Jun 7 09:19:06 CEST 2010

It brings up some interesting issues.

As the report alludes to the fact that it's not too much of a problem to set
up a 60 Gigabit network for a neighborhood.

The topology and functionality might look like:

Individuals have their own download/upload pipes for their personal traffic
When they want a local copy of a large file they share the download between
the other users
The file is downloaded/assembled on the shared computing cluster (local
cloud)
The next time a user wants that file they are directed to access it from the
local cloud
Local cloud users might need another box that communicates with the local
cloud and operates like a NAS on their in-home router
Local clouds in a city, on out to the suburbs could be inter-connected by
line of site (optical)
The local cloud could offer authenticated services to allow integration for
users
The local cloud could also publish various data sets for consumption by
anonymous users like calendars

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> thanks gordon1
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Gordon Cook <cook at cookreport.com> wrote:
>
>>  it's GordOn  ;-)
>>
>> St arnaud gave it the name application content infrastructure
>>
>> The important take away is that between 1995 and 2000 you got all traffic
>> from one edge to another via 5 or 6 tier one carrier backbones and another 5
>> or so tier two back bones -  every one else had to pay carrier backbone to
>> deliver their traffic
>>
>> what is being is  here is that between 2000 and the present the incumbent
>> duopoly did not invest in the core of the network leaving google amazon etc
>> etc to build increasingly cheap and commoditized lightwaves from one edge of
>> the net top the other  that most of the business software service ands
>> content people built their own back bone infrastructure and pushed it as
>> close to the customer as they could get.
>>
>> ATT wanted to charge google fo using its backbone.... att was lying google
>> had built its own back bone and the FCC now operating on behalf of the
>> incumbents no longer required them to disclose their infrastructure...they
>> were there for quite free to lie.
>>
>> Arbor networks ( Craig labovitz)  last fall put out the first major study
>> outling the new reality which is very hard to document because  att verizon
>> are allowed to treat all their network data as proprietary
>>    =============================================================
>> The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, (PSTN) 609 882-2572 (Skype-in) 609
>> 643-4067
>> Back Issues:
>> http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=37&Itemid=61
>>
>>  Cook's Collaborative Edge Blog http://gordoncook.net/wp/
>>  Subscription info:
>> http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=65
>> =============================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Jun 6, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>
>>  the name comes either from bill st. arnaud, or from comments about it by
>> gorden cook ..
>>
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Application_Content_Infrastructure
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know where the ACI name came from.  It seems to me like saying
>>> that there's a move to continue to distribute collective computing and
>>> storage to the edge is sufficient.
>>>
>>> I think it's neat and I'll run a node.
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>>   On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Michel Bauwens <
>>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   Hi sepp, I added it as a discussion item ... see
>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Application_Content_Infrastructure
>>>>
>>>> Can you also post it as a blog discussion on the 14th?
>>>>
>>>> Michel
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Sepp Hasslberger <sepp at lastrega.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Hi Michel,
>>>>>
>>>>> here is my view on the wiki entry on Application Content
>>>>> Infrastructure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you think this should be put to be available to those
>>>>> interested, and would you think that the writer of the ACI paper should be
>>>>> advised?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sepp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a very interesting discussion (I just re-read it) and it does
>>>>> touch on the question of a user-owned network controlled by peers, although
>>>>> it does not delve into how such a network could work. St. Arnaud talks about
>>>>> the growing importance of Application Content Infrastructure (ACI) on the
>>>>> net, and how much of the traffic that traditionally would go over the
>>>>> internet backbone of internet service providers is actually being routed and
>>>>> computed and stored in alternative ways.
>>>>>
>>>>>  *"Examples of ACIs include large distributed caching networks such as
>>>>> Akamai, cloud service providers such as Amazon and Azure, Application
>>>>> Service Providers (ASPs) like Google and Apple, Content Distribution
>>>>> Networks (CDNs) such as Limelight and Hulu, and social networking services
>>>>> like Facebook and Twitter. Many Fortune 500 companies like banks and
>>>>> airlines have also deployed their own ACIs as an adjunct to their own
>>>>> private wide area networks in order to provide secure and timely service to
>>>>> their customers. Most major content and application organizations have
>>>>> contracted with commercial ACIs or have deployed their own infrastructure.
>>>>> ACIs also allows the content provider to load balance demand, so that
>>>>> traffic in regions expressing excessive loads can be re-directed to nodes
>>>>> where there is spare capacity.*
>>>>>
>>>>> *The end result is that with very little fanfare the Internet has been
>>>>> transformed so much so over the past decade that virtually all major content
>>>>> and every advanced application on the Internet is now delivered over an ACI
>>>>> independent of the traditional carrier Internet backbones."*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In effect, the document says that ISPs are following the outdated model
>>>>> of the phone companies but aren't really doing their job of connecting users
>>>>> to the greater net with sufficient bandwidth for the content, especially
>>>>> video, to arrive at the end user in a proper way. It goes on to make the
>>>>> point that ACI or Application Content Infrastructure could be expanded, and
>>>>> in conjunction with R&E (Regional and Educational) networks could get even
>>>>> closer to the end user.
>>>>>
>>>>>  *"Up to most recently the text book model of the Internet was for
>>>>> businesses and consumers to access the internet through a last mile provider
>>>>> such as telephone or cable company. Their traffic would be sent across the
>>>>> backbone to its destination by an Internet service provider. This model
>>>>> worked reasonably well in the early days of the Internet but as new
>>>>> multimedia content such as video and network applications evolved the
>>>>> current model failed to provide a satisfactory quality of experience for
>>>>> users in terms of responsiveness and speed. As a result a host of content,
>>>>> application and hosting companies invested in something for the purposes of
>>>>> this paper I have collectively labeled as a Application Content
>>>>> Infrastructure (ACI) that complemented and expanded the original Internet
>>>>> through the integration of computing, storage and network links."*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is left open is how the last mile is going to function. The ISPs
>>>>> seem to be too busy metering their pipes and even grading traffic, giving
>>>>> priority to certain content and degrading the stuff that is seen as being in
>>>>> violation of intellectual property laws and they forget that their job
>>>>> includes to connect everyone with a sufficiently wide band connection for
>>>>> content not to suffer degradation before arriving at the end user.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mobile networks are mentioned as a possible solution, but with demands
>>>>> escalating, they may soon be running into the same trouble as current last
>>>>> mile technologies.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a mention of "customer owned networks" but with no vision of
>>>>> how to achieve these.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to make a point or two here, just for discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are currently efforts to adapt WIFI technology to build mesh
>>>>> networks, but WIFI was conceived as a short range technology and "last mile"
>>>>> typically means we may be talking distances between nodes of several hundred
>>>>> meters. This degrades signal throughput of WIFI, even with external
>>>>> antennas. G3 or G4 mobile phone technology could help, but here we talk
>>>>> about competing providers that are not about to share networks with each
>>>>> other.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, there are fairly widespread concerns over the huge
>>>>> increase in electromagnetic pollution brought to our homes by both WIFI and
>>>>> mobile phone technologies, which are not going to go away, unless there is a
>>>>> change in technical specs that can assure the electrosensitive that they
>>>>> have a future that doesn't involve hiding out in far away places or wearing
>>>>> protective clothing and installing special shielding in their homes.
>>>>>
>>>>> There IS an interesting technology that does not involve pulsed
>>>>> microwaves as the transmission medium and that could - with some help - be
>>>>> made available to end users, constructing a tight weave of local
>>>>> connectivity that can tap into both ISPs and ACIs and their extensions and
>>>>> that is sufficiently fast and robust to be a candidate.
>>>>>
>>>>> ISPs could perhaps be induced to adopt it as an alternative to building
>>>>> out their last mile connectivity alone, which turns out to be very expensive
>>>>> if it is to carry broadcast quality content. Users could be the ultimate
>>>>> custodians of that type of network but it would imply end users and and ISPs
>>>>> forming some kind of alliance, out of which the end users get free local
>>>>> connectivity (they supply the electricity and basic maintenance) and ISPs
>>>>> get a functioning last mile distribution and customers for their backbone
>>>>> services.
>>>>>
>>>>> The vision is to take the light beams that travel through optic cables
>>>>> and to replace the cables by simple light-based transmission, preferably
>>>>> laser, between the end users. This would form a fault tolerant and fast
>>>>> (high data throughput) network from one rooftop to the next, which would
>>>>> make local connectivity free and fast. Not every end user would have to be
>>>>> connected to the backbone. The user-cloud could be linked by what we might
>>>>> call "super users" (those with need for high bandwidth or with need for
>>>>> exceptionally stable connection) such as large businesses, educational
>>>>> institutions, city hall, etc. to the optic cable backbones. Those
>>>>> connections that are anyway needed and already paid for would be quite
>>>>> sufficient to connect the user-cloud to the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> The technology will need some development, but it has been proven to
>>>>> work in concept. One implementation marries ultra wide band radio technology
>>>>> with a laser and a single optic fiber:
>>>>>
>>>>> *"Moshe Ran, Coordinator of the EU-funded project, UROOF (Photonic
>>>>> components for Ultra-wideband Radio Over Optical Fiber), has a vision. He
>>>>> wants to see streams of high-definition video and other high-bandwidth
>>>>> services flowing through homes, office buildings, and even ships and planes,
>>>>> through a happy marriage of optical and ultra-wideband radio technologies."
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>> *The UROOF EAT system starts with a central laser that generates an
>>>>> unmodulated optical signal and sends it through a single optical fibre to
>>>>> remote units. In its downlink mode, the central unit receives a UWB radio
>>>>> signal, modulates the optical carrier, and beams it to the remote units. In
>>>>> the uplink mode, a remote EAT modulates the optical signal and sends it back
>>>>> to the central station.*
>>>>> *
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>> *The EAT based Access Node 2 has the potential to carry far more
>>>>> information than Access Node 1, but there is a catch. "With EAT you can
>>>>> approach 60 GHz," says Ran, "but it is expensive."*
>>>>>
>>>>> *The UROOF team is actively working to increase the bandwidth of
>>>>> Access Node 2 and reduce its cost.*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Ran is encouraged by the progress UROOF has made. They have shown
>>>>> that UWB signals can be beamed over hundreds of metres using inexpensive
>>>>> optical technology, with greater bandwidth and longer distances in sight.
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>> *"As ultra-wideband technology penetrates the mass market - within the
>>>>> next two years - it will be possible to manufacture an access node that will
>>>>> meet the demand very nicely," says Ran.*
>>>>> ***The UROOF project received funding from ICT strand of the EU's
>>>>> Sixth Framework Programme for research.*
>>>>>
>>>>> Link: http://www.cellular-news.com/story/34767.php
>>>>>
>>>>> Another way of linking is to directly beam the laser from one user's
>>>>> device to a receiving sensor of another user as described in the patent
>>>>> application of Ajang Bahar of Toronto, Canada.
>>>>>
>>>>>  *The current options for wireless communication have changed the way
>>>>> people work and the way in which networks can be deployed. However, there
>>>>> remains unresolved problems in the setup and configuration of wireless
>>>>> communication links. Both known cellular and ad hoc wireless networking
>>>>> protocols and systems are deficient in that the ability for users to
>>>>> communicate without a priori knowledge of MAC addresses (represented by
>>>>> phone numbers, IP addresses and the like) is limited or may be compromised
>>>>> in a hostile environment. In contrast, provided by aspects of the present
>>>>> invention are devices, systems and methods for establishing ad hoc wireless
>>>>> communication between users that do not necessarily have MAC addresses and
>>>>> the like for one another. In some embodiments, a first user visually selects
>>>>> a second user and points a coherent light beam at an electronic device
>>>>> employed by the second user. Data specific to the first user is modulated on
>>>>> the coherent light beam, which can then be demodulated when the coherent
>>>>> light beam is received by the electronic device of the second user.*
>>>>>
>>>>> Link: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080247345#ixzz0q61l0c8U
>>>>>
>>>>> A similar patent by Doucet and Panak can be found here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=RbQjAAAAEBAJ&dq=6188988&ie=ISO-8859-1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a paper by Akella and others of Rensselaer Polytechnic
>>>>> Institute titled *Building Blocks for Mobile Free-Space-Optical
>>>>> Networks.*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Optical wireless, also known as free space optics (FSO), is an
>>>>> effective high bandwidth communication technology serving commercial
>>>>> point-to-point links in terrestrial last mile applications and in infrared
>>>>> indoor LANs. FSO has several attractive characteristics such as (i) dense
>>>>> spacial reuse, (ii) low power usage per transmitted bit, (iii) license-free
>>>>> band of operation, and (iv) relatively high bandwidth. Despite these
>>>>> features it has not been considered as a communication environment for
>>>>> general-purpose metropolitan area networks or multi-hop ad-hoc networks,
>>>>> which are currently based on radio frequency (RF) communication
>>>>> technologies...*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The US military has analyzed Free Space Optics as a transmission
>>>>> technology and has produced and published a White Paper:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25017951/Analysis-of-FSO
>>>>>
>>>>> My point is that the technology of optical transmission has been
>>>>> explored and is technically feasible for last mile applications. Since users
>>>>> can be connected to more than one peer, the network becomes fault tolerant.
>>>>> Increasing proximity to a super-user, a node connected with the backbone,
>>>>> will make for increasing reliability of the network.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now if telcos and ISPs could be induced to embrace that technology, a
>>>>> simple, cheap implementation could be developed that could easilty be given
>>>>> away to end users, in exchange for operation of the node. ISPs would have
>>>>> resolved the problem of covering the last mile, while users would be linked
>>>>> in to the internet at negligible or no cost and we would have a local p2p
>>>>> network that data can travel on without having to go through any provider.
>>>>> Even in a national context, data would only have to go short hops (such as
>>>>> from one city to another) saving backbone capacity and making the net very
>>>>> much more resilient.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sepp Hasslberger for the P2P Foundation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  On 24/mag/10, at 10:27, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Sepp, Olivier, see
>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Application_Content_Infrastructure
>>>>>
>>>>> blog commentary and presentation would be much appreciated, see
>>>>> discussion part for summary of implications of this new internet
>>>>> infrastructure,
>>>>>
>>>>> Michel
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>>
>>>>> Think thank:
>>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>
>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>
>>>> Think tank:
>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100607/92bda9ec/attachment.html>