nanog mailing list archives
Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
From: Toerless Eckert <eckert () cisco com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 19:10:52 -0700
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:42:59PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
So, what is the problem?You have a multicast sender on your network, and the 5 clients are on 5 different peer networks. You just carried 5 times the traffic on your network, and billed your client once.
Do source based accounting on egress into your peering points and cross charge sent multicast traffic back to the traffic-source. Or better, change the peering policy costs for multicast traffic to better adopt to it's characteristics. But agreed. This is the case where the source get's the most added value out of your service without the currently set up accounting schemes to work well. It would certainly be possible to nicely keep the accounting problem down to the ingress router by aggregating these egress link counts via PIM. Cheers Toerless
Current thread:
- RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6), (continued)
- RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Jason Lewis (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Joe St Sauver (Jul 09)
- RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) David Sinn (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) David Meyer (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) Toerless Eckert (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Joel Jaeggli (Jul 09)
- Message not available
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Leo Bicknell (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Toerless Eckert (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) David Meyer (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Petr Swedock (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Jul 11)