On Dec 2, 2010, at 2:01 PM, david raistrick wrote: > On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Antonio Querubin wrote: > >>> -entire- end to end IP network, it will be significantly broken significant >>> amounts of the time. >> >> Which points to the need for service providers to deploy robust multicast >> routing. > > No doubt - it also points to multicast itself needing a bit more sanity and > flexibility for implimentation. When you have to tune -every- l3 device > along the path for each stream, well.... > It's not quite that bad. I've done multiple multicast implementations where this was utterly unnecessary, but, it does take some configuration on most L3 devices to make it work reasonably well.
> > As Owen pointed out, perhaps carriers will eventually be motivated to make > this happen in order to reduce their own bandwidth costs. Eventually. > > In the meantime, speaking with my content hat on, we stick with unicast. :) > Wrong answer, IMHO. Where it makes sense, use multicast with a fast fallback to unicast if multicast isn't working. In this way, it helps build the case that deploying multicast will save $$$. Without it, the mantra will be "Multicast doesn't matter, even if we implement it, none of the content will use it." Owen
