[174265] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Multicast Internet Route table.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Tue Sep 2 13:01:26 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Really-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <D02B3D26.13DCB%corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 13:00:51 -0400
To: Corey Touchet <corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Corey Touchet
<corey.touchet@corp.totalserversolutions.com> wrote:
> 14 years at Verizon Wireless and I despised the crop of multicast products
> that seemed to pop up from time to time. [...] Content
> delivery systems moving the content closer to edge customers makes this
> less of a problem as well. [...]
> Torrent style distribution appears to be particularly effective as long as
> you can maintain a pool of users to distribute the content.
Hi Corey,
Would it be fair to say that:
Unicast delivery from distributed caches (e.g. CDNs, Content Delivery
Networks) and/or unicast peer to peer transfer is more effective in
nearly all applications where interdomain multicast routing is a
candidate solution?
If that's true, would it be useful for ISPs to build some kind of
generalized multi-layer streaming cache system that any end-user
application could make use of? Build caching into the system's
capabilities instead of it being hit or miss depending on who pays for
a CDN?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
