[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Was it foreseen that the Internet might handle 242 Gbps of traffic for Oprah's Book Club webinars?

2008-03-08 16:09:44

On 8 mar 2008, at 17.51, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

On Mar 8, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:

Patrik Fältström wrote:
P.S. And if multicast is in use, or unicast or some othercast,  
that is  from my point of view part of the "innovation" the ISPs  
have to do  (and will do) to ensure that the production cost is as  
low as possible  so that their margin is maximized.

I actually see a bit of a problem here as multicast would lower the  
usage of links, as such, they can't charge as much as with link  
that is saturated with unicasted packets. Thus to lower the use in  
the internal network one would use multicast, but the client would  
then still have to get unicast so that for every listener they are  
actually paying...

I am afraid that this is the sort of reasoning that has lead to P2P  
having such widespread use.

Is not one of the problems of exchanging multicast packets that  
someone that receive a multicast packet do not know how much bandwidth  
in the internal network that packet in reality will take? If the  
incoming packet is a unicast packet, there is a 1:1 relationship  
between incoming and outgoing packets. With multicast, one might have  
to send >1 packet out over the egress after receiving a packet?

If so, could not new models of charging be that if A send multicast  
packet to B, "the number of packets sent" are the number of packets  
going _out_ from B, not in to B? If it was possible to do such  

But I should keep my mouth shut, I should not discuss such low levels  
of the stack...I am just seeing here some issues being discussed that  
are discussed above level I dived down. Now back to the normal  


IETF mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>