So assuming router state based multicast, how do you bill on that if
the stream is exploded on the opposite end of, or in the middle of, a
transit network?
You're likely getting it from a settlement free peer at the request of
your customer who has paid for you to deliver it to them. You can
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 10:02 PM 11-02-07 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
IP Multicast as a solution to video distribution is a non-starter. IP
Multicast for the wide area is a failure. It assumes large numbers of
people will watch the same content at the same
IP Multicast as a solution to video distribution is a non-starter. IP
Multicast for the wide area is a failure. It assumes large numbers of
people will watch the same content at the same time.
They do.
Sure it degrades to effective unicast if too few people watch the same
channel in the
a point in the technology
relatively soon where a movie can be shipped across the net for about the
same
cost as postage today.
You mean like fileshare networks have been doing for years now? The delivery
model is already functional.
Geo.
10 or 1000 channels it's going to be better than not using it. I don't
see the logic in using it for nothing because it's not good for some
things.
Multicast isn't going to help the phoneco atm network. Whatever model
emerges will only work if it works all the way to the end user. If you
Multicast isn't going to help the phoneco atm network.
Indeed, people keep quoting that but it's a bogus argument
as nothing will help the phoneco atm network running out
of bandwidth other than upgrading it
That is happening, unicast/p2p/multicast/whatever, as all this
content is raising
On 12-Feb-2007, at 09:23, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Sure it degrades to effective unicast if too few people watch the same
channel in the same area (so just use unicast for those channels),
that
doesn't mean it's no use for the popular channels that have
millions of
viewers.
I think
I think you're presupposing that the concept of channels is
something that will persist.
For some time.
There's quite an industry with an interest in maintaining that. It
probably won't vanish until the current generations die.
Channel based and discrete delivery of content (radio vs
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:42:06AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
On 12-Feb-2007, at 09:23, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Sure it degrades to effective unicast if too few people watch the same
channel in the same area (so just use unicast for those channels),
that
doesn't mean it's no use for
Paul Vixie wrote:
(i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?)
While I'm sure people were looking for headlines, I think the broader
implication in the report was current pricing power not supporting new
investment.
...
A recent report from Deloitte said 2007
[Perhaps my viewpoint is skewed because channel-delivered TV content
in Canada is horrible; it's almost as bad as American TV. I seem to
think that broadcast TV in the UK more tolerable, although I haven't
really seen it since I left the UK in the mid 90s so perhaps
I'm just
-- Forwarded message --
From: Alexander Harrowell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Feb 12, 2007 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
To: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul, that's very interesting. A query:
AMT Site: A multicast-enabled network not
Hello;
On Feb 12, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Alexander Harrowell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Feb 12, 2007 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
To: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul, that's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geo.) writes:
Multicast isn't going to help the phoneco atm network. ...
nothing can help, or for that matter save, the phoneco atm network.
--
Paul Vixie
nothing can help, or for that matter save, the phoneco atm network.
atm and frame relay do not need saving. they tend to be profitable.
but the everything over mpls folk are managing to save them anyway,
turning operating profit into capital expense to the vendors. brilliant.
randy
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
I never quite understood why layered multicast never took off which would
solved the problems you state above. There have been so many research
papers on the subject from the late 90s that I would have thought that by
now IPmc would be the silver bullet
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet
approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks
in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of
the pipes.
...
Beware, the end is
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Peter Beckman wrote:
NBC can now stream their shows to me as a .mp4 and I could grab them as
fast as they could send it, rather than in realtime. They might offer the
same stream at different data rates: 1mbps, 5mbps, 10mbps, 30mbps (for
those of us lucky enough to have
On 2/13/07, Hank Nussbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen this in action as far back as 1998 and just don't quite grok why
it never took off.
Let me paraphrase a couple folks who summed it all up very nicely:
So assuming router state based multicast, how do you bill on that if
the
(i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?)
...
A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet
approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks
in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
(i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?)
...
A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet
approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks
in some of the
On Feb 11, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
perhaps next time the news folks could
ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network
operators?
they did ask one, you must have missed this from the article:
Verisign, the American firm which provides the
-Chris, still-waiting-for-the-rapture, wrote as follows:
(or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and no more fiber
to push traffic over? wasn't there in fact a hue and cry about a 1) fiber
glut, 2) only 4% of all fiber actually lit?)
:-). however, you did seem to miss the
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:14:49AM -0700, brett watson wrote:
On Feb 11, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
perhaps next time the news folks could
ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network
operators?
they did ask one, you must have missed this from the
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
(i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?)
Any of us with any sense know the Internet could potentially die tomorrow
morning. Any of us with any sense know it could be done in any number of
ways, ranging from relatively
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
because people can't get more pipe? perhaps next time the news folks could
ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network
operators? (or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and
no more fiber to push
:-). however, you did seem to miss the hue and cry about how ALL YOUR
BASE
ARE BELONG TO GOOGLE now. a smattering of this can be found at:
Has anyone considered that perhaps google is not looking at beating
Microsoft but instead at beating TIVO, ABC, CBS, Warner Cable, etc? You
can't
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, brett watson wrote:
they did ask one, you must have missed this from the article:
Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of
the net, including domain names .com and .net,...
I forgot that new IP over POS over DNS over IP over POS
Has anyone considered that perhaps google is not looking at beating
Microsoft but instead at beating TIVO, ABC, CBS, Warner Cable, etc?
sure, but...
You can't possibly believe that there is enough bandwidth to stream
HD video to everyone, that's just not going to happen any time soon.
I didn't know verisign was a transit provider. Anyone use em?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of brett watson
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:15 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at
My CIO is convinced that Google is going to take over the internet and
everyone will pay google for access. He also believes that google will
release their own protocol some sort of Google IP which everyone will
have to pay for also.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:39:04PM -0800, Joseph Jackson wrote:
My CIO is convinced that Google is going to take over the internet and
everyone will pay google for access. He also believes that google will
release their own protocol some sort of Google IP which everyone will
have to pay
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Joseph Jackson wrote:
My CIO is convinced that Google is going to take over the internet and
everyone will pay google for access. He also believes that google will
release their own protocol some sort of Google IP which everyone will
have to pay for also.
You mean like
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:14:49AM -0700, brett watson wrote:
Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of
the net, including domain names .com and .net,...
IP over domain name registration?
--
David W. HankinsIf you don't do it right the first time,
do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put
some capital and preorder into IDMR?
IDMR is great if you're a broadcaster or a backbone, but how does it help
the last 2 miles, the phoneco ATM network or the ISP network where you have
10k different users watching 10k
I believe that the element that has been missing in this discussion thus far has
been the source (content) players, and where they are hiding. CDNs, a la Akamai,
Limelight, etc., will take up some of the slack and mitigate much of the
backbone
burden where legitimate ISPs are concerned, as will
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:14:49AM -0700, brett watson wrote:
Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of
the net, including domain names .com and .net,...
IP over domain name registration?
We already had Video
Thus spake Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 02:57 PM 2/11/2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
...wouldn't there be, if interdomain multicast existed and had a
billing
model that could lead to a compelling business model? right now, to
the
best of my knowledge, all large multicast flows are still
Owen DeLong wrote:
Today IPTV is in its infancy and is strictly a novelty for early
adopters. As the technology
matures and as the market develops an understanding of the
possibilities creating pressure
on manufacturers and content providers to offer better, it will
gradually become
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geo.) writes:
IDMR is great if you're a broadcaster or a backbone, but how does it help
the last 2 miles, the phoneco ATM network or the ISP network where you have
10k different users watching 10k different channels?
40 matches
Mail list logo
