[NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ?

Sat Apr 26 19:03:59 UTC 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.

Marc

> Antonio Querubin
> whois:  AQ7-ARIN