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 ?
hello all ,
For 10000 concurrent unicast streams you'd need not just more servers.
thanks for the partizipation on this topic , i was "theoreticly " speaking and this was actually what i wanted to hear ;)
You'd need a significantly different network infrastructure than something that would have to handle only a single multicast stream. But supporting multicast isn't without it's own problems either. Even the destination networks would have to consider implementing IGMP and/or MLD snooping in their layer 2 devices to obtain maximum benefit from multicast.
i was reading some papers about multicast activity on 9/11 and it was interesting to read that it just worked even when most of the "big player " sites went offline, so this gives me another approach for emergency scenarios. <http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0110/ppt/eubanks.ppt> <http://multicast.internet2.edu/workshops/illinois/internet2-multicast-worksh...
Akamai has built a Content Delivery Network (CDN) because they do not have to rely on any specific ISP or any specific IP network functionality. If you go with IP Multicast, or MPLS P2MP(Point to MultiPoint) then you are limited to only using ISPs who have implemented the right protocols and who peer using those protocols.
so this is similar to a "wallet garden " and not what we really want , but i was clear about that this is actually the only idea to implement a "new" technologie into an existing infrastructure. regards and sorry for beeing a bit offtopic Marc <www.lettv.de>
Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog