You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small closed
networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly change.
One of my previous assertions was the possibility of streaming video
as the major motivator of IPv6 migration. Without it, video streaming
to a large market, outside of multicasting in a closed network, is
not scalable, and therefore, not feasible. Unicast streaming is a
short-term bandwidth-hogging solution without a future at high take
rates.
Gian Anthony Constantine
Senior Network Design Engineer
Earthlink, Inc.
Office: 404-748-6207
Cell: 404-808-4651
Internal Ext: x22007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jan 9, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 9-Jan-2007, at 11:29, Gian Constantine wrote:
Those numbers are reasonably accurate for some networks at certain
times. There is often a back and forth between BitTorrent and NNTP
traffic. Many ISPs regulate BitTorrent traffic for this very
reason. Massive increases in this type of traffic would not be
looked upon favorably.
The act of regulating p2p traffic is a bit like playing whack-a-
mole. At what point does it cost more to play that game than it
costs to build out to carry the traffic?
If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree
streaming is scary on a large scale, but unicast streaming is what
I reference. Multicast streaming is the real solution. Ultimately,
a global multicast network is the only way to deliver these
services to a large market.
The trouble with IP multicast is that it doesn't exist, in a wide-
scale, deployed, inter-provider sense.
Joe
