Re: The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Feb 12, 2013, at 01:06 , Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us> wrote:
> On 02/11/2013 03:52 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> > One of us has a different dictionary than everyone else.
>
> I'm not sure it's different dictionaries, I think you're talking past each other.

No, it's definitely different dictionaries.

I am purposely staying out of the whole multicast vs. CDN vs. set-top caching vs. $RANDOM_TECHNOLOGY thing.  I was 
concentrating sole on one point - that the long tail "is _by definition_ a tiny fraction of total demand" (Stephen's 
emphasis).

The long tail might be a fraction, or it might be a majority of the traffic.  Depends on the use case.  Important to 
remember this discussing the pros & cons of each protocol / approach.

As for the rest, time will tell.  But it's fun to watch the discussion, especially by people who have never attempted 
any of what they are espousing. :)  Hey, sometimes that's where the best ideas come up - people who don't know what is 
impossible are not constrained!

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


> Video on demand and broadcast are 2 totally different animals. For VOD, multicast is not a good fit, clearly. But for 
> broadcast, it has a lot of potential. Most of the issues with people wanting to pause, rewind, etc. are already 
> handled by modern DVRs, even with live programming.
>
> What I haven't seen yet in this discussion (and sorry if I've missed it) is the fact that every evening every 
> broadcast network sends out hour after hour of what are essentially "live" broadcasts, in the sense that they were 
> not available "on demand" before they were aired "on TV" that night. In addition to live broadcasts, this nightly 
> programming is ideal for multicast, especially since nowadays most of that programming is viewed off the DVR at 
> another time anyway. So filling up that DVR (or even watching it live) could happen over multicast just as well as it 
> could happen over unicast.
>
> But more importantly, what's missing from this conversation is that the broadcast networks, the existing 
> cable/satellite/etc. providers, and everyone else who has a multi-billion dollar vested interest in the way that the 
> business is structured now would fight this tooth and nail. So we can engineer all the awesome solutions we want, 
> they are overwhelmingly unlikely to actually happen.
>
> Doug