[38678] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Multicast Traffic on Backbones
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Gauthier)
Sun Jun 10 13:46:54 2001
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 13:44:19 -0400
From: Eric Gauthier <eric@roxanne.org>
To: Michael Whisenant <mwhisen@foreigner.whisenant.net>
Cc: Tim Winders <twinders@SPC.cc.tx.us>,
Joshua Goodall <joshua@roughtrade.net>, Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>,
"Nanog@Merit. Edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Message-ID: <20010610134419.B6210@roxanne.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0106100753180.9619-100000@foreigner.whisenant.net>; from mwhisen@foreigner.whisenant.net on Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 08:05:24AM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> they not be compensated for the flow? If you are going to have N times
> receivers of your stream, should they then not have the ability to charge you
> some factor greater than 1 to support the flow? One method is to limit the
> amount of bandwidth of multicast per edge interface, but if a 128K stream is
> sent to hundreds or thousands of places then it could impact certain links as
> well. Maybe not the backbone running at OC-x speeds...
I'm relatively new to multicasting, but my impression is that if you have a
128K stream that you are sending out then, even if you are sending it towards
hundreds or thousands of places, no individual link would have more than
128K on it (thus the point of multicasting). There may be hundreds of
different links each with an additional 128K, but the N-factor amplification
you are referencing would be more from the "we now have to send this same
128K out 20 different peering links and possibly (depending on your peering
policy) pay 20 times the bandwidth cost" but it shouldn't cause any
individual link to become overloaded.
Eric :)
