nanog mailing list archives
Re: DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast
From: Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:38:34 -0500
Phil, Arbitrarily turning uni-cast traffic into multi-cast won't do much in that regard. If the end points that didn't orginally ask for the data NAK the incoming stream then they'll get kicked out of the IGMP group, further the requesting end point will be confused by the fact that the traffic is coming in as multi-cast. You could put up some fake hosts that will take any multi-cast data, but they'd be pretty easy to spot over time and making all of your home gateways accept multi-cast traffic they didn't ask for would be a bad thing (think trivial DDoS of your system). Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Phil Karn <karn () philkarn net> wrote:
On 11/29/2013 10:03 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:It looks like Cisco is doing something in the IP Video over DOCSIS area,andso if you're serious about this, you could reach out to them.It's not video over IP multicast that interests me so much as the opportunity to thwart NSA-style bulk traffic analysis by multicasting unicast messages with encrypted destination addresses so an eavesdropper can't tell who it's for.
Current thread:
- DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast mr. s (Nov 29)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast Scott Helms (Nov 29)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast Phil Bedard (Nov 29)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast Phil Karn (Nov 29)
- RE: DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast Frank Bulk (Nov 29)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast Phil Karn (Nov 29)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast Scott Helms (Nov 29)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast Phil Karn (Nov 29)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast Jay Ashworth (Nov 29)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast Phil Karn (Nov 29)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast Phil Karn (Nov 29)
- Re: DOCSIS 3.0 and Multicast Victor Kuarsingh (Nov 29)