On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:48:51 -0700, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rubens Kuhl" <rube...@gmail.com>
And that's the snap answer, yes. But the *load*, while admittedly
lessened over unicast, falls *mostly* to the carriers, who cannot anymore
bill for it, either to end users, providers, *or* as transit.
Will they not complain about having their equipment utilization go up
with no recompense -- for something that is only of benefit to commercial
customers of some other entity?
Why would they bill someone for a service they are already providing?
So the first user in a router tunes to a multicast stream. Consumption
for the ISP and all the routers in the chain to the source: same as if
it were a unicast stream. Then a second user tunes to a multicast
stream. Cost for the ISP: zero.
So 5000 users connect each to a different multicast source. It is the
same as if they all used unicast. The utilization can never be
worse than a unicast-only network.
So maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I fail to see a problem, only an
artificial one created for the sake of it. Other than the potencial CPU
load of the routing protocol, I even fail to see the commercial value of
not providing multicast.
