>> 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-workshop-31-july-2-august-2006-1-overview.ppt > > 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
