On 8 mar 2008, at 17.51, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
>> Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> [..]
>>> P.S. And if multicast is in use, or unicast or some othercast,
>>> that is from my point of view part of the "innovation" the ISPs
>>> have to do (and will do) to ensure that the production cost is as
>>> low as possible so that their margin is maximized.
>>
>> I actually see a bit of a problem here as multicast would lower the
>> usage of links, as such, they can't charge as much as with link
>> that is saturated with unicasted packets. Thus to lower the use in
>> the internal network one would use multicast, but the client would
>> then still have to get unicast so that for every listener they are
>> actually paying...
>>
>
> I am afraid that this is the sort of reasoning that has lead to P2P
> having such widespread use.
Is not one of the problems of exchanging multicast packets that
someone that receive a multicast packet do not know how much bandwidth
in the internal network that packet in reality will take? If the
incoming packet is a unicast packet, there is a 1:1 relationship
between incoming and outgoing packets. With multicast, one might have
to send >1 packet out over the egress after receiving a packet?
If so, could not new models of charging be that if A send multicast
packet to B, "the number of packets sent" are the number of packets
going _out_ from B, not in to B? If it was possible to do such
accounting...
But I should keep my mouth shut, I should not discuss such low levels
of the stack...I am just seeing here some issues being discussed that
are discussed above level 7...so I dived down. Now back to the normal
business.
Patrik
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
