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
accounting...
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 7...so I dived down. Now back to the normal
business.
Patrik
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf