Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?

Brett_Watson at Brett_Watson at
Tue Jun 15 17:28:42 UTC 1999

On 06/15/99 10:13:44 AM Vadim Antonov  wrote:
>Please.  Caching is _at least_ as efficient as multicasting (multicasting
>_is_ caching, with zero retention time) - w/o associated security and
>scalability problems.  Presenting L2/L3 multicasting as the best or the
>or even a meaningful way to reduce transmission duplication is quite

research or data to support these assertions?

and how does caching magically negate security and scalability concerns?
what tools are you using to do content replication/management that scale to
thousands of hosts/caches?  even if i assume caching is as efficient, or
more so, than multicast, i'm still just trading one set of
security/scalability concerns for others.  caching is no more a silver
bullet than multicast.

>>The benefits are obivous though and router vendors are definitely
>>but as with any technology, debugging and getting the protocols to a
>>state, one to which SLA/SLGs can be assoicated, takes time.
>The benefits of mining cheap cheese on the Moon are quite obvious.  If
>willing to overlook the small fact that the Moon isn't made from cheese.

well, i can't deny this assertion, although i've never been to the moon.

>_No_ technological advances can help the fact that L2/L3 multicasts cannot
>be routed in a scalable fashion.  Think what happens when there is 1mil
>multicast trees in the network.
>I think blaming vendors for inability to build products which run faster
>than the proven lower boundaries for the required kind of algorithms is,
>er, strange.

i won't deny the potential scalability problems but i think your
generalizing/oversimplifying to say caching just works and has no security
or scalability concerns.


More information about the NANOG mailing list