The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network

Mon Feb 11 19:11:29 UTC 2013

On 11-Feb-13 12:25, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> On 2/11/13 9:32 AM, ML wrote:
>> Any eyeball network that wants to support multicast should peer with
>> the content players(s) that support it. Simple!
>>
>> Just another reason to make the transit only networks even more
>> irrelevant.
>
> The big issue is that the customers don't want to watch simulcast
> content.  The odds of having two customers in a reasonably sized
> multicast domain watching the same netflix movie at exactly the same
> time frame in the movie is slim.  Customers want to watch on time
> frames of their own choosing.   I don't see multicast helping at all
> in dealing with the situation.

Multicast _is_ useful for filling the millions of DVRs out there with
broadcast programs and for live events (eg. sports).  A smart VOD system
would have my DVR download the entire program from a local cache--and
then play it locally as with anything else I watch.  Those caches could
be populated by multicast as well, at least for popular content.  The
long tail would still require some level of unicast distribution, but
that is _by definition_ a tiny fraction of total demand.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2381 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20130211/47a3c320/attachment.bin>