On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
No business is entitled to protection of its business model.
Unless it has a market monopoly, deep pockets, and lobbyist friends.
Tim Durack wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
No business is entitled to protection of its business model.
Unless it has a market monopoly, deep pockets, and lobbyist friends.
Many years ago I was the MCI side of the Real Broadcast Network. Real
Networks arranged to broadcast a
Rolling Stones concert. We had the ability to multicast on the Mbone and
unicast from Real Networks caches.
We figured that we'd get a hit rate of 70% multicast (those who wanted to see
On 08/05/2011, at 4:10 PM, Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com wrote:
Many years ago I was the MCI side of the Real Broadcast Network. Real
Networks arranged to broadcast a
Rolling Stones concert. We had the ability to multicast on the Mbone and
unicast from Real Networks caches.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com
You do realize that unicast from Real Networks caches *IS* multicast,
just not IP Multicast. Akamai runs a very large and successful multicast
network which shows that there is great demand for multicast services,
Absolutely, multicast inside of a provider network is critical for
feeding local caches. This is a common approach in IPTV networks
supporting VOD via multiple headends.
Content can still be multicasted to the edge caching servers, for
near-real-time updates,
that you then may visit/view
Content can still be multicasted to the edge caching servers, for
near-real-time updates,
that you then may visit/view on-demand with your favorite unicast
client
Charles
Yep. That gives a hybrid approach that still greatly reduces the load
on the ultimate content source. One stream for
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:55 AM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
multicast. How do I encrypt something in a way that anyone can decrypt
but nobody can duplicate? If I have a separate stream per user, that is
Have you ever seen a CableCARD? That's pretty much what it does,
except not
On May 5, 2011, at 1:55 54AM, George Bonser wrote:
There is a security aspect to such things, though, as how do you
know
the content is from a trusted source? That is the bugaboo with
multicast. It needs to be information that isn't going to hurt
anything
if it is bogus. Also, it opens
On 05/05/11 00:15, Jeff Young wrote:
The most ambitious use of multicast I'm aware of is ATT's UVerse
network which multicasts (SS) from two
head-ends all the way to the set top box in a home. But this is
confined to the ATT network and UVerse is
arguably a me-too offering to compete with
On Wed, 4 May 2011, George Bonser wrote:
SSM with encryption?
Well, certainly, but source address can be very easily spoofed with a
UDP multicast stream. Now that could be mitigated with a lot of network
configuration rules but something is needed that just works without all
that.
It's
- Original Message -
From: George Bonser gbon...@seven.com
So using multicast for things like software updates to computers over
the general internet to the general public probably isn't going to
work.
Encryption is also an issue because it doesn't really work well over
multicast.
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz
There are certainly things that need work before I can start up Jeff's
Internet Movie Channel and go into competition with HBO, but for the
most part, these are solvable if networks decided to do it. The big
limitation is
- Original Message -
From: Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu
Encryption is probably overkill anyway. What is needed is a mechanism
simply to say that the content is certified to have come from the source
it claims to come from. So ... basically ... better not to use
multicast
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com said:
Unless (what I assert is) Google's plan to engender muni fiber last-mile
really catches fire -- at which point it will become logistically practical
for people like Chris Adams to compete with people like Road Runner... and
you'll have your
On 04/05/2011, at 1:54 AM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
Multicast is an elegant solution to a dwindling problem set.
And that is fundamentally where we disagree. I see this as not
elegant at all. It is a fundamental part of the protocol suite. It
is no more elegant than
- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey S. Young yo...@jsyoung.net
I think it's elegant, in think Deering did an incredible job to
create it and some many years ago I played a role to bring
multicast to the Internet at large. I believed that multicast
would play a huge role in the
I think that George's POV -- which is also mine -- is that as the
world shifts, the percentage of video distribution which is
amenable to multicast, and not well served by unicast, is likely
to grow, and it would be a Good Idea to be ready for that
situation already when it arrives.
Really?
I think that George's POV -- which is also mine -- is that as the
world shifts, the percentage of video distribution which is
amenable to multicast, and not well served by unicast, is likely
to grow, and it would be a Good Idea to be ready for that
situation already when it arrives.
On 5/4/2011 12:26 PM, Tim Franklin wrote:
I think that George's POV -- which is also mine -- is that as the
world shifts, the percentage of video distribution which is
amenable to multicast, and not well served by unicast, is likely
to grow, and it would be a Good Idea to be ready for that
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Leigh Porter
leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com wrote:
Agreed, it seems the only demand really for this live viewing is sport, news
and background programming like the mentioned breakfast television.
I disagree with the general notion that multicast is not useful
On 5/4/2011 2:07 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Leigh Porter
leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com wrote:
Agreed, it seems the only demand really for this live viewing is sport, news
and background programming like the mentioned breakfast television.
I disagree with the
I disagree with the general notion that multicast is not useful except
for live content.
Oh, there are all SORTS of things it would be well-suited for. Live
content is just the lowest hanging fruit.
WINDOWS UPDATES
Most of us have some number of Windows machines on our networks,
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Scott Helms khe...@ispalliance.net wrote:
Local caching is MUCH more efficient than having the same traffic running in
streams and depending on everyone's PC to try and update in the same time
This only works, of course, if there is a local cache which PCs are
On May 4, 2011, at 3:37 48PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Scott Helms khe...@ispalliance.net wrote:
Local caching is MUCH more efficient than having the same traffic running in
streams and depending on everyone's PC to try and update in the same time
This only
On Wed, 4 May 2011, George Bonser wrote:
There is a security aspect to such things, though, as how do you know
the content is from a trusted source? That is the bugaboo with
multicast. It needs to be information that isn't going to hurt anything
if it is bogus. Also, it opens up a DoS
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz
The potential savings is limited by the over-speed of the mcast stream
vs real-time, and the density of mcast listener groups. Given that
access network speeds continue to increase, yet ISPs are really not
increasing
--As of May 4, 2011 5:43:04 PM -0400, Jay Ashworth is alleged to have said:
You know what would make this work *well*? If IAPs *didn't include mcast
traffic in your cap*. Since the reason for their caps is, in the final
analysis *to limit THEIR transit costs*, multicast would seem to be a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/05/2011, at 2:53 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
On 5/4/2011 12:26 PM, Tim Franklin wrote:
I think that George's POV -- which is also mine -- is that as the
world shifts, the percentage of video distribution which is
amenable to multicast, and
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com wrote:
Multicast is a great technical solution in search of a good business problem.
It's a useful replacement for broadcast on a local link. It's of
limited utility elsewhere.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 5:21 PM, George Bonser
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Staal dst...@usa.net
--As of May 4, 2011 5:43:04 PM -0400, Jay Ashworth is alleged to have
said:
You know what would make this work *well*? If IAPs *didn't include mcast
traffic in your cap*. Since the reason for their caps is, in the final
On Wed, 04 May 2011 18:20:09 EDT, William Herrin said:
And of course such a cache system could work well for popular
non-streamed content as well.
Never quite linked up with someone interested in seeing an
implementation though...
I suspect to generate interest, it would have to be
- Original Message -
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
No business is entitled to protection of its business model.
Unless it has a market monopoly, deep pockets, and lobbyist friends.
That does not mean they're *entitled* to it... just that they
There is a security aspect to such things, though, as how do you
know
the content is from a trusted source? That is the bugaboo with
multicast. It needs to be information that isn't going to hurt
anything
if it is bogus. Also, it opens up a DoS possibility with noise
traffic
sent to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 03/05/2011, at 1:33 PM, George Bonser wrote:
f there are 10,000 Comcast subscribers watching exactly the same live
event on the net, sending 10,000 streams of exactly the same data is
dumb and it doesn't have to be that way.
IMHO,
It's
Multicast is an elegant solution to a dwindling problem set.
And that is fundamentally where we disagree. I see this as not
elegant at all. It is a fundamental part of the protocol suite. It
is no more elegant than unicast. I also believe that it will be the
wireless operators that bring
On 4/29/2011 8:57 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Those royalties are based on the_actual_number_ of persons
tuning in to each such work. No 'averaging', no 'estimating', nothing
based on 'ratings', or other 'sampling techniques -- you have to count
the_actual_number_ of people tuned in. It gets
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 10:11:34 -0400
From: David Sparro dspa...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: How do you put a TV station on the Mbone?
On 4/29/2011 8:57 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Those royalties are based on the_actual_number_ of persons
tuning in to each such work. No 'averaging
On Apr 29, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
I think this is sadly the truth. There are some problems that can be solved
by multicast, but I've seen the number of customer requests for v4 multicast
go by the wayside over the years. The only people that are generally
interested are the
In a message written on Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:53:35PM -0400, Patrick W.
Gilmore wrote:
I'm not at all certain that this is a political problem. I believe it is
more of a user need / want problem (which I guess you could classify as
layer 7 if you want).
The users don't care if the
I'm not at all certain that this is a political problem. I believe it
is more of a user need / want problem (which I guess you could
classify
as layer 7 if you want).
The occasional large live event - and when I say occasional, I mean
not a few per year - likely could be helped if there
- Original Message -
From: George Bonser gbon...@seven.com
It doesn't make sense for a lot of on-demand access but makes a lot of
sense for live content like radio talk shows, news, sports, etc. Even
webcams could be upgraded to provide streaming content rather than
individual frames
On (2011-04-29 18:34 -0400), david raistrick wrote:
3) as an a midstream network provider I have almost no motivation to
support this. Sure, my network usage would be reduced - but I (more
or less simplified here, but) make my living on each bit of traffic
I carry - if I offered a way for
On 30/04/2011, at 5:44 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Delivering multicast to end users is fundamentally not hard. The
biggest issue seems to be with residential CPE (pretty much the same
problem as IPv6, really).
Well, more than that, since I don't really want my DSL pipe saturated
On Friday, April 29, 2011 03:37:04 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
You've conflated my two points. That would tell the *carriers* who's watching
what, but they probably don't care. I was talking about *the providers*
knowing (think DRM and 3096 viewers online).
And then if there's music, the
On Friday, April 29, 2011 05:16:51 PM George Bonser wrote:
But if broadcast events over the internet are treated the same as
broadcast events over RF, who cares?
They're not; that's the problem. For the US, at least, the Copyright Office of
the Library of Congress has statutory authority in
Once upon a time, Daniel Roesen d...@cluenet.de said:
That reminds me of 9/11. When the tragic event unfolded, we sat in the
office. News made the rounds verbally, and people started looking for
streaming services at their personal desks (no TVs around). People
pretty quickly gave up trying to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Chris Adams wrote:
I can also see how this affects the ISPs providing bandwidth to the
content providers. In our colo for example, we rate-limit customers to
the paid-for bandwidth at the colo port. With multicast however, they
could use significantly more bandwidth,
On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:34:15 -0700, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Octavio Alvarez alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org said:
So the first user in a router tunes to a multicast stream. Consumption
for the ISP and all the routers in the chain to the source: same as if
it were a
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:57:42 CDT, Robert Bonomi said:
There's a layer 9 (or is it 10? wry grin -- required for legal reasons)
answer for that.
This layer goes to 11...
:)
pgpaSdXsuQH8i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Malayter malay...@gmail.com
On Apr 28, 11:14 pm, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
(cough)multicast(cough)
But... but... how do we count the viewers, then?
Isn't the real problem with global multicast: How do we ultimately
bill the
Isn't the real problem with global multicast: How do we ultimately
bill the broadcaster for all that traffic amplification that happened
*inside* every other AS? It seems like you'd have to do per-packet
accounting at every router, and coordinate billing/reporting amongst
all providers that
- Original Message -
From: Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com
Isn't the real problem with global multicast: How do we ultimately
bill the broadcaster for all that traffic amplification that
happened
*inside* every other AS? It seems like you'd have to do per-packet
accounting at
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:48:51 EDT, Jay Ashworth said:
Will they not complain about having their equipment utilization go up
with no recompense -- for something that is only of benefit to commercial
customers of some other entity?
Like their load didn't go up with no recompense this morning.
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com
Isn't the real problem with global multicast: How do we ultimately
bill the broadcaster for all that traffic amplification that
happened
*inside* every
On 29/04/11 14:04 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:48:51 EDT, Jay Ashworth said:
Will they not complain about having their equipment utilization go up
with no recompense -- for something that is only of benefit to commercial
customers of some other entity?
Like
On Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 01:48:51PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Will they not complain about having their equipment utilization go up
with no recompense -- for something that is only of benefit to commercial
customers of some other entity?
Sorry, but are your eyeballs not already paying you for
- Original Message -
From: Simon Lockhart si...@slimey.org
On Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 01:48:51PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Will they not complain about having their equipment utilization go up
with no recompense -- for something that is only of benefit to
commercial customers of some
On 4/29/11 10:12 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Malayter malay...@gmail.com
On Apr 28, 11:14 pm, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
(cough)multicast(cough)
But... but... how do we count the viewers, then?
Isn't the real problem with global multicast:
On Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 03:03:47PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
The real problem I see myself is that *the Mbone has to be pervasive* (or
mostly so) for this to be a worthwhile investment for providers.
What is missing is an adaptive client (be it flash, or HTML5) which will
transparently use
On 4/29/2011 2:47 PM, Dan White wrote:
On 29/04/11 14:04 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:48:51 EDT, Jay Ashworth said:
What's the break-even point, the number of streams being sent at once
where
multicasting it starts taking less resources than N unicast streams?
From: Jay Ashworth
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 10:13 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: How do you put a TV station on the Mbone? (was: Royal
Wedding...)
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Malayter
On Apr 28, 11:14 pm, Jay Ashworth wrote:
(cough)multicast(cough
- Original Message -
From: George Bonser gbon...@seven.com
Internet engineers are prone to try to solve this problem in favor of
the viewer, and their networks -- with their networks winning in case
of a push.
Should be easy enough on your subscriber ports to use igmp to see who
Delivering multicast to end users is fundamentally not hard. The
biggest issue seems to be with residential CPE (pretty much the same
problem as IPv6, really).
Well, more than that, since I don't really want my DSL pipe saturated
with TV that I'm not watching, you need some way for the CPE to
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Fri Apr 29 12:24:21
2011
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:23:23 -0300
Subject: Re: How do you put a TV station on the Mbone? (was: Royal Wedding...)
From: Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com
To: Nanog nanog@nanog.org
Isn't the real problem
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 4/29/11 10:12 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
It turns out that as a content provider you can unicast video delivery
without coordinating the admission of your content onto every edge
eyeball network on the planet. It's cheap
You've conflated my two points. That would tell the *carriers* who's
watching
what, but they probably don't care. I was talking about *the
providers*
knowing (think DRM and 3096 viewers online).
Cheers,
-- jra
It would be done the same way it is done currently with cable TV. Who
Well, more than that, since I don't really want my DSL pipe saturated
with TV that I'm not watching, you need some way for the CPE to tell
the ISP send me stream N
That is what igmp is for. Only send what I specifically request.
Imagine: multicast internet radio! Awesome!
I have a feeling streaming is going to stay unicast.
Multicast is a great technical solution in search of a good business
problem.
--
Tim:
Multicast is perfect for a live event. Unicast is best for on demand
viewing of something.
An event
- Original Message -
From: George Bonser gbon...@seven.com
Multicast is perfect for a live event. Unicast is best for on demand
viewing of something.
An event such as today's wedding, a conference viewed in real-time, a
sports event, etc. is well-suited for multicast.
Great. So,
On Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 05:40:59PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Great. So, as I asked earlier (as yet unanswered):
I have in my hand an NTSC video cable and an XLR with audio. How do I hook
that to the mbone? :-)
Simple.
Go get yourself an encoder - VBrick, Envivio, Tandberg, etc, etc -
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:48:51 -0700, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com
And that's the snap answer, yes. But the *load*, while admittedly
lessened over unicast, falls *mostly* to the carriers, who cannot anymore
bill for it,
- Original Message -
From: Simon Lockhart si...@slimey.org
I have in my hand an NTSC video cable and an XLR with audio. How do
I hook that to the mbone? :-)
Simple.
Go get yourself an encoder - VBrick, Envivio, Tandberg, etc, etc - there's
plenty out there, take your pick.
Original Message -
From: Tim Durack tdur...@gmail.com
Imagine: multicast internet radio! Awesome!
That would, indeed, be awesome; when everyone in my office was listening to
the royal wedding, there would be a *much* higher chance of them all being
in sync.
Cheers,
-- jra
Great. So, as I asked earlier (as yet unanswered):
I have in my hand an NTSC video cable and an XLR with audio. How do I
hook
that to the mbone? :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
Might want to ask the folks at Silicon Valley Linux Users group, they used to
broadcast their meetings on the mbone,
Imagine: multicast internet radio! Awesome!
That would, indeed, be awesome; when everyone in my office was
listening to
the royal wedding, there would be a *much* higher chance of them all
being
in sync.
Cheers,
-- jra
Exactly. If more people/networks took advantage of multicast,
Original Message -
From: david raistrick dr...@icantclick.org
1) As a consumer network (enterprise, home) - that case is VERY rare.
50 people consuming it at your house? Or at the office consuming the same
feed? (even at a 10k employee company, the rate of that is fairly low,
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I'd expect it to be fairly common at colleges; possibly in companies,
ok, colleges I can buy.
Is it still this fragile in 2011?
It was in 2009, anyway.
And you haven't written the O'Reilly book yet... why? :-)
Because it's not an experience I
Daniel,
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Daniel Roesen d...@cluenet.de wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 05:51:25PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Imagine: multicast internet radio! Awesome!
That would, indeed, be awesome; when everyone in my office was listening to
the royal wedding, there would
On Apr 29, 2011, at 3:44 PM, John Levine wrote:
Delivering multicast to end users is fundamentally not hard. The
biggest issue seems to be with residential CPE (pretty much the same
problem as IPv6, really).
Well, more than that, since I don't really want my DSL pipe saturated
with TV
On Apr 29, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 4/29/11 10:12 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
It turns out that as a content provider you can unicast video delivery
without coordinating the admission of your content onto every
On Apr 29, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
IP multicast was the only way for us to see what happened, live.
Unicast failed miserably.
I'll say that today with some providers offering streaming to customers iPad
and other types of devices, the problem isn't the capacity to the
Subject: RE: How do you put a TV station on the Mbone?
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:15:42 -0700
From: George Bonser gbon...@seven.com
Imagine: multicast internet radio! Awesome!
That would, indeed, be awesome; when everyone in my office was
listening to the royal wedding, there would
83 matches
Mail list logo
