![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: multicast
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:41:37 +0200
* rrt () research telcordia com (Rajesh Talpade) [Tue 09 Jul 2002, 17:28 CEST]:
So why cant the data and control plane be separate for content delivery? Use multicast for the data part, but stick with unicast for the control.
RealPlayer for one does this, AFAIK. (Otherwise they wouldn't be able to charge those extortuous license fees for the server, of course)
Of course the ISPs will also have to somehow separate the data and control plane, so their billing issues with multicast can be addressed...
It probably costs more to send/receive a multicast packet than a unicast one, but there is a cutoff point at a certain (hopefully small!) number of listeners that will vary from network to network and from stream to stream... "Issues" might not be strong enough a word - which would also help explain why not many networks have it in their product portfolios. Regards, -- Niels.
Current thread:
- RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) David Sinn (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Rajesh Talpade (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast Niels Bakker (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Stephen Sprunk (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) David Meyer (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Jeff Aitken (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Stephen Sprunk (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Eric A. Hall (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Scott A Crosby (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Joel Jaeggli (Jul 09)
- RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Jason Lewis (Jul 09)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Joe St Sauver (Jul 09)
- RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) David Sinn (Jul 09)
(Thread continues...)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Rajesh Talpade (Jul 09)