On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 6:19 AM Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

Le 23/03/2020 à 04:05, Aaron Gould a écrit :
> I can see it now.... Business driver that moved the world towards multicast .... 2020 Coronavirus

I should abstain from writing about this but I think the situation of
virus with a crown version year 2020 is not yet understood on business.

There are signs business would work as before: business challenges that
we know worked are now tested with sponsoring open source projects on
3D-printed ventilators (respirator).

Other signs I see seem to differ: same kind of projects but not looking
for money. That might not amount for 'business' but might save lives
equally well.

It is not clear to me where it is heading to, probably a mix of the two.

And it is not clear to me where multicast might fit into this, because
presumably an Internet-connected ventilator might not have much data to
send, depending of course, if one wants to put a measurement device on
another side of the planet and the breath on one side, and the air
pressure might need to be transmitted instantaneously, like 'remote
surgery' needs to transmit haptic feedback effect across long distances.

It's all hypothesis and speculation from my part.

Alex, LF/HF 3

>
> Also, I wonder how much money would be lost by big pipe providers with multicast working everywhere
>
> -Aaron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 3:41 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Sunday traffic curiosity
>
>
> Le 22/03/2020 à 21:31, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
>> Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote on 22/03/2020 19:17:
>>> What was wrong with Internet scale multicast? Why did it get abandoned?
>> there wasn't any problem with inter-domain multicast that couldn't be
>> resolved by handing over to level 3 engineering and the vendor's
>> support escalation team.
>>
>> But then again, there weren't many problems with inter-domain
>> multicast that could be resolved without handing over to level 3
>> engineering and the vendor's support escalation team.
>>
>> Nick
> For my part I speculate multicast did not take off at any level (inter
> domain, intra domain) because pipes grew larger (more bandwidth) faster
> than uses ever needed. Even now, I dont hear problems of bandwidth from
> some end users, like friends using netflix. I do hear in media that
> there _might_ be an issue of capacity, but I did not hear that from end
> users.
>
> On another hand, link-local multicast does seem to work ok, at least
> with IPv6. The problem it solves there is not related to the width of
> the pipe, but more to resistance against 'storms' that were witnessed
> during ARP storms. I could guess that Ethernet pipes are now so large
> they could accomodate many forms of ARP storms, but for one reason or
> another IPv6 ND has multicast and no broadcast. It might even be a
> problem in the name, in that it is named 'IPv6 multicast ND' but
> underlying is often implemented with pure broadcast and local filters.
>
> If the capacity is reached and if end users need more, then there are
> two alternative solutions: grow capacity unicast (e.g. 1Tb/s Ethernet)
> or multicast; it's useless to do both. If we cant do 1 Tb/s Ethernet
> ('apocalypse' was called by some?) then we'll do multicast.
>
> I think,
>
> Alex, LF/HF 3
>
>