[132929] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The scale of streaming video on the Internet.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Dec 2 18:22:33 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1012021658150.26089@murf.icantclick.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 15:15:57 -0800
To: david raistrick <drais@icantclick.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 2, 2010, at 2:01 PM, david raistrick wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Antonio Querubin wrote:
>=20
>>> -entire- end to end IP network, it will be significantly broken =
significant amounts of the time.
>>=20
>> Which points to the need for service providers to deploy robust =
multicast routing.
>=20
> No doubt - it also points to multicast itself needing a bit more =
sanity and flexibility for implimentation. When you have to tune =
-every- l3 device along the path for each stream, well....
>=20
It's not quite that bad. I've done multiple multicast implementations =
where this was utterly unnecessary, but, it does take
some configuration on most L3 devices to make it work reasonably well.
>=20
> As Owen pointed out, perhaps carriers will eventually be motivated to =
make this happen in order to reduce their own bandwidth costs. =
Eventually.
>=20
> In the meantime, speaking with my content hat on, we stick with =
unicast. :)
>=20
Wrong answer, IMHO. Where it makes sense, use multicast with a fast =
fallback to unicast if multicast isn't working.
In this way, it helps build the case that deploying multicast will save =
$$$. Without it, the mantra will be "Multicast
doesn't matter, even if we implement it, none of the content will use =
it."
Owen
