[52026] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP over in-ground cable applications.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David G. Andersen)
Thu Sep 12 15:12:03 2002
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:09:14 -0400
From: "David G. Andersen" <dga@lcs.mit.edu>
To: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
Cc: "Christopher J. Wolff" <chris@bblabs.com>,
"'Nathan Stratton'" <nathan@robotics.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: "David G. Andersen" <dga@lcs.mit.edu>,
Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>,
"Christopher J. Wolff" <chris@bblabs.com>,
'Nathan Stratton' <nathan@robotics.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <GPEOJKGHAMKFIOMAGMDIIEMCOHAA.deepak@ai.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 03:04:35PM -0400, Deepak Jain mooed:
>
>
> You would need multicast speakers (routers, etc) along the cable route to
> effectively multiple your bandwidth at all. Since cable is already
> multicasting (1 stream to many/all) I don't think I see any advantage.
>
> Unless, of course, you expect cable customers to be broadcasting to other
> cable customers (say their own home video content)... Then MPEG2 Multicast
> would be your friend.
I don't think the answer is as simple as that. It really depends
on the number of subscribers per last-hop multicast box, and on
the number of channels you offer / popularity distribution of
the channels.
If you've got 5 channels and 10,000 subscribers per box,
multicast saves you nothing. If you've got 1000 channels and
100 subscribers per box, ...
-Dave
--
work: dga@lcs.mit.edu me: dga@pobox.com
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science http://www.angio.net/
I do not accept unsolicited commercial email. Do not spam me.
