[NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ?
tony at lava.net
Sat Apr 26 13:42:32 CDT 2008
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.
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).
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.
> 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
More information about the NANOG