On (2012-01-11 17:45 -0500), Justin M. Streiner wrote:
If multicast is used it shouldn't take 150pbps, it should be much lower.
That could be one of the things that helps spur v6 adoption - multicast being somewhat less of an afterthought :)
While v4 multicast works, and delivering video is one of the things it can do very well, some networks don't route v4 multicast or exchange v4 multicast prefixes, so its utility on a wide scale can be limited.
This is misguided, IPV6 does no magic to help scale multicast to Internet scale compared to IPV4. Scaling multicast to Internet scale would make our core routers essentially flow based routers. And as there is finite amount of how many of these flows you could hold, we would need some way to globally regulate how and who can push their content as multicast and save lot of money and who will have to pay the full price. Those who are left out, might feel like multicast is used to stop competition. Now maybe we could specify some sort of stateless 'manycast' in IPv6, where you'd map destination AS numbers as source address. Needing to send only one copy of traffic per destination ASN (or less if you can map multiple ASN in source address), and then destination ASN would need to have Magic Box to do stateful magic and could cherry-pick what they care about. But that's lot of complexity for very incomplete solution, as it would only remove states from transit. -- ++ytti