Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:33:51PM -0400, John Fraizer wrote:
One of your clients is a mcast sender. You bill him/her for the traffic on their port.
Five of your clients are mcast receivers. You bill them for the traffic on their respective ports.
Worst(best?) case scenerio: The sender and the 5 receivers are all on your network. You get to bill all six of them.
Works fine.
If the sender is outside of your network and you have to deliver the mcast to 5 different points on your network to your 5 mcast receiver clients, you only see the mcast enter your network ONE TIME. You STILL get to bill your 5 mcast receiver clients for the traffic on their ports and you only have to INGRESS one copy of it to distribute to your 5 clients.
Works fine.
So, what is the problem?
You have a multicast sender on your network, and the 5 clients are on 5 different peer networks. You just carried 5 times the traffic on your network, and billed your client once. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:42:59PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
So, what is the problem?
You have a multicast sender on your network, and the 5 clients are on 5 different peer networks. You just carried 5 times the traffic on your network, and billed your client once.
Do source based accounting on egress into your peering points and cross charge sent multicast traffic back to the traffic-source. Or better, change the peering policy costs for multicast traffic to better adopt to it's characteristics. But agreed. This is the case where the source get's the most added value out of your service without the currently set up accounting schemes to work well. It would certainly be possible to nicely keep the accounting problem down to the ingress router by aggregating these egress link counts via PIM. Cheers Toerless
participants (2)
-
Leo Bicknell -
Toerless Eckert