Am 26.04.2008 um 20:42 schrieb Antonio Querubin:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Marc Manthey wrote:
" IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet traffic ?
On one hand, the amount of content that is 'live' or 'continuous' and suitable for multicast streaming isn't s large percentage of overall internet traffic to begin with. So the effect of moving most live content to multicast on the Internet would have little overall effect.
right, i am aware of that and i was ment as an hypothetically rant ;)
However, for some live content where the audience is either very large or concentrated on various networks, moving to multicast certainly has significant advantages in reducing traffic on the networks closest to the source or where the viewer concentration is high (particularly where the viewer numbers infrequently spikes significantly higher than the average).
i am not a math genious and i am talking about for example serving 10.000 unicast streams and 10.000 multicast streams would the multicast streams more efficient or lets say , would you need more machines to server 10.000 unicast streams ?
But network providers make their money in part by selling bandwidth. The folks who would need to push for multicast are the live/perishable content providers as they're the ones who'd benefit the most. But if bandwidth is cheap they're not really gonna care.
well , cheap is relative , i bet its cheap where google hosts the NOCs , but its not cheap in brasil , argentinia or indonesia.
Isn´t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ?
It's an argument for decreasing traffic and improving network efficiency and scalability to handle 'flash crowd events'. IPv6 has nothing to do with it.
thanks for your opinion. Marc
Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog