[104151] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marc Manthey)
Sat Apr 26 15:04:07 2008
From: Marc Manthey <marc@let.de>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0804260826190.2263@malasada.lava.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:03:59 +0200
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Am 26.04.2008 um 20:42 schrieb Antonio Querubin:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Marc Manthey wrote:
>
>> " IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet
>> content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet =
>> traffic ?
>
> On one hand, the amount of content that is 'live' or 'continuous' =
> and suitable for multicast streaming isn't s large percentage of =
> overall internet traffic to begin with. So the effect of moving =
> most live content to multicast on the Internet would have little =
> overall effect.
right, i am aware of that and i was ment as an hypothetically rant ;)
> However, for some live content where the audience is either very =
> large or concentrated on various networks, moving to multicast =
> certainly has significant advantages in reducing traffic on the =
> networks closest to the source or where the viewer concentration is =
> high (particularly where the viewer numbers infrequently spikes =
> significantly higher than the average).
i am not a math genious and i am talking about for example serving
10.000 unicast streams and
10.000 multicast streams
would the multicast streams more efficient or lets say , would you =
need more machines to server 10.000 unicast streams ?
> But network providers make their money in part by selling =
> bandwidth. The folks who would need to push for multicast are the =
> live/perishable content providers as they're the ones who'd benefit =
> the most. But if bandwidth is cheap they're not really gonna care.
well , cheap is relative , i bet its cheap where google hosts the =
NOCs , but its not cheap in brasil , argentinia or indonesia.
>> Isn=B4t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ?
>
> It's an argument for decreasing traffic and improving network =
> efficiency and scalability to handle 'flash crowd events'. IPv6 has =
> nothing to do with it.
thanks for your opinion.
Marc
> Antonio Querubin
> whois: AQ7-ARIN
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
