Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?

Vadim Antonov avg at
Tue May 18 19:04:52 UTC 1999

Oleg Tabarovsky <olg at> wrote:

>Current state of IP multicast technology development looks more and more
>similar to ATM stuff, both in development speed and complexity.
>The same end ? :-)

Yep.  Simply people try to patch fundamental problems with hacks.
That never worked, but then, that fact never discouraged from trying.
Particularly when there's a significant population of marks who
believe everything written in the trade rags.

>Proper inter-domain multicast implementation will make state
>volume manageable.

Handwaving.  How is it going to make it manageable, exactly?

>> In any case, L3 mcasting seems to be pretty much dead.  Replicating
>> canned content is better done with caches, and conferencing requiries
>> real MCUs which do things like speaker selection and noise suppression.

>What about broadcasting ? Caches will not help.

They particularly help in case of broadcasting, because content reuse
rate is high.  You can think of multicasting as of caching where each
cache has zero retention time.

(Caches do not have to delay delivery until the entire file/stream is

>And, IMHO, any real life conferencing can pretty well live without multicast at all.

Yep. I would say it is hard to implement a useful multiparty conferencing
_with_ multicasting.  (Yes, i'm fed up with H.323, H.225, H.245, Q.931, RTP,
G.711, G.729, CSTA, TAPI, Megaco/MGCP, and the rest of the crap).


More information about the NANOG mailing list