Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Marshall Eubanks tme at
Tue Jan 9 18:21:38 UTC 2007

On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Gian Constantine wrote:

> You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small  
> closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly  
> change.

I am curious. Why do you think that ?


> One of my previous assertions was the possibility of streaming  
> video as the major motivator of IPv6 migration. Without it, video  
> streaming to a large market, outside of multicasting in a closed  
> network, is not scalable, and therefore, not feasible. Unicast  
> streaming is a short-term bandwidth-hogging solution without a  
> future at high take rates.
> Gian Anthony Constantine
> Senior Network Design Engineer
> Earthlink, Inc.
> Office: 404-748-6207
> Cell: 404-808-4651
> Internal Ext: x22007
> constantinegi at
> On Jan 9, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>> On 9-Jan-2007, at 11:29, Gian Constantine wrote:
>>> Those numbers are reasonably accurate for some networks at  
>>> certain times. There is often a back and forth between BitTorrent  
>>> and NNTP traffic. Many ISPs regulate BitTorrent traffic for this  
>>> very reason. Massive increases in this type of traffic would not  
>>> be looked upon favorably.
>> The act of regulating p2p traffic is a bit like playing whack-a- 
>> mole. At what point does it cost more to play that game than it  
>> costs to build out to carry the traffic?
>>> If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree  
>>> streaming is scary on a large scale, but unicast streaming is  
>>> what I reference. Multicast streaming is the real solution.  
>>> Ultimately, a global multicast network is the only way to deliver  
>>> these services to a large market.
>> The trouble with IP multicast is that it doesn't exist, in a wide- 
>> scale, deployed, inter-provider sense.
>> Joe

More information about the NANOG mailing list