[NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ?
marc at let.de
Sat Apr 26 14:03:59 CDT 2008
Am 26.04.2008 um 20:42 schrieb Antonio Querubin:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Marc Manthey wrote:
>> " IF we would use multicast" streaming ONLY, for appropriet
>> content , would `nt this " decrease " the overall internet
>> traffic ?
> On one hand, the amount of content that is 'live' or 'continuous'
> and suitable for multicast streaming isn't s large percentage of
> overall internet traffic to begin with. So the effect of moving
> most live content to multicast on the Internet would have little
> overall effect.
right, i am aware of that and i was ment as an hypothetically rant ;)
> However, for some live content where the audience is either very
> large or concentrated on various networks, moving to multicast
> certainly has significant advantages in reducing traffic on the
> networks closest to the source or where the viewer concentration is
> high (particularly where the viewer numbers infrequently spikes
> significantly higher than the average).
i am not a math genious and i am talking about for example serving
10.000 unicast streams and
10.000 multicast streams
would the multicast streams more efficient or lets say , would you
need more machines to server 10.000 unicast streams ?
> But network providers make their money in part by selling
> bandwidth. The folks who would need to push for multicast are the
> live/perishable content providers as they're the ones who'd benefit
> the most. But if bandwidth is cheap they're not really gonna care.
well , cheap is relative , i bet its cheap where google hosts the
NOCs , but its not cheap in brasil , argentinia or indonesia.
>> Isn´t this an argument for ip6 / greenip6 ;) aswell ?
> It's an argument for decreasing traffic and improving network
> efficiency and scalability to handle 'flash crowd events'. IPv6 has
> nothing to do with it.
thanks for your opinion.
> Antonio Querubin
> whois: AQ7-ARIN
More information about the NANOG