On 7/18/05, krio the d34d1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on a lan cutting down 94% of traffic is a thing for wich a lan > operator could kill someone, believe me =) > and over the internet - its server admin's problems to work things out > with isp and considering the possible 94% cut - it worths it. > time will pass and this will be a common thing imho.
Multicast will not likely become internet common in yours or my lifetime's. Until mutlicast has the ability to restrict and audit bandwidth usage to particular customers this bandwidth will never be given away free. I have access to several internet routable multicast switches and they have the ability to fill their data pipes one time. Just by being on one side of the switch I am allowed to join or leave a multicast group and can set up new groups as I desire, if I were of the mind, I could have alot of fun attacking small ISP's with such a router. Maybe you get the idea that multicast can't generally be given to everyone, hell if it could can you imagine what the P2P community would get like? Due to it's popularity BitTorrent trackers are actually getting close to requiring buffered/repeater/multicast solutions and many other options are being consdered, multicast was not considered a good solution - for static data! (not to mention the required changes to protocol, and so on). As far as saving bandwidth is concerned, you routing infrastructure needs to be within the same multicast group if it is going to hand off casting data to other switches, otherwise all you have done is made the server send one packet to the router, which then sends a copy to each client, the total reduction in ISP chargable bandwidth hasn't changed. > 2005/7/18, James Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 7/17/05, Steve Dalberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Lastly, and I'm not sure on this, but I don't believe that > > > all updates from a server to client are identical, but I'm not sure... > > > > "Game data is compressed using delta compression to reduce network > > load. That means the server doesn't send a full world snapshot each > > time, but rather only changes (a delta snapshot) that happened since > > the last acknowledged update. With each packet sent between the client > > and server, acknowledge numbers are attached to keep track of their > > data flow. Usually full (non-delta) snapshots are only sent when a > > game starts or a client suffers from heavy packet loss for a couple of > > seconds. Clients can request a full snapshot manually with the > > cl_fullupdate command." -- > > http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Source_Multiplayer_Networking > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > > that doesn't change anything, delta snapshot can be sent multicasted > as well, and on error to unicast a full snapshot to the laggy client > is a good idea. > and im not really sure why should the snapshots be encrypted.. the > rest data - yeah, but the snapshots with coords etc... That depends if it's per-client delta or per-server. ;) full-snapshots are significantly larger and less unique - these should most certainly be considered for multicast, if that is what is being considered. Not to mention the fact that it is these which have a longer DTT and could create more choke+/latency at the server. "on the lan env its spoofable even with encryption, exploits are in the wild, its a matter of sniffing the challange, so on that arena this doesn't change anything." -don't they break into the client to decrypt?, that's not quite the same. (although I must admit, I haven't read the source code yet). -build your lans properly! :) "Do you honestly think if it served no purpose they'd leave it in?" Do you honestly think if it lost it's purpose due to one or two exploits "they" take it out and make it easy for any num-nuts? "well, if u want to use multicasting u should know that most ip-carriers do not support multicasting." Multicasting does not need support from downstream carriers, but there is little to no advantage without multicast routers downstream as it only saves bandwidth on the outside interface if there are. The inside interface will always see a bandwidth reduction. Of course we really need that cause those servers NIC's are so heavily loaded ya know ;) _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
