Subject: Re: mboned: brief IMAD BOF summary

From: "Jeremy Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:09:11 -0400

well I'm just saying that if you want to support the sdr-like model,
then you have to have ASM working in some flavour.  Once you have that
for even a single group you might as well have it going for all groups
which defeats the whole purpose.

I think the assumption here is that we are saying:

well let's see what multicastable sessions exist today

but from a content provider's perspective, the multicast deploy is a
bonus savings, and people who only provide content via multicast are
shooting themselves in the foot--because the end user can't do anything
about the lack of multicast.  We need to think of multicast as a tool
not a toy, and then we need to find a way to get it accepted.

The problem here-in is that we've been trying to get that going for
years.  It's almost too late now--but if we could fold multicast as a
requirement into ipv6 then we would have it available for the
applications as a bonus not a driver.  Even during the boom there wasn't
enough marketing push for multicast, so what makes you think we will
ever have that chance again?

_J

>>> Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]> 8/10/2005 2:50:40 PM >>>
>> If you make a directory of SSM, you are indeed drifting away from
msdp
>> and relying on some static application to do its work.  If we
thought
>> MSDP deployment was bad, wait until we require some directory (I.E.
sdr)
>> to make it going.  Does sdr work yet?

    Alternatives?

    This is certainly a different perspective. And a perspective one
might
    interpret as MSDP isn't actually that bad comparitively?   ;-)

Dino
_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/

_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/

---

From: John Zwiebel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:49:30 -0700

> which defeats the whole purpose.

Storing the multicast session information in the network (ie sdr)
is not an option.

It seems obvious that one would like to have a "TV Guide" for all the  
multicast
sessions on the internet, but IMHO, that kind of a channel doesn't
work all that well for cable TV systems.  At least I prefer looking at
the print version.

So, I think we would be better off letting content providers design
their own session advertisement method.  Perhaps they can send junk mail
(via USPS) or maybe call you on your cell phone -- whatever.  (Obviously
I'm not really serious about these suggestions.)  But it is a problem
each content provider needs to solve.

So why isn't clicking on a web page "good enough"?  Why are we trying to
make it more complicated than it has to be?

This is (IMHO) what makes SSM so powerful.  There's no need for an RP
and there's no need to allocate group addresses to content providers.

However, distribution of session information is, I believe, just a minor
part of the problem.  The major part is getting IGMPv3 deployed (ha, ha)
and meeting the ISP objections for multicast deployment.

As long as hardware vendors can make more money by selling equipment  
that support
only unicast streams, and as long as BW/session doesn't grow beyond the
tiny video we see now, nothing is going to change.

Things will only change when the ISPs finally recognize the threat  
poised
by Comcast and SBC who -are- deploying high-BW video on their private  
network.
When I ask about how "we" (however you want to define "we") are going to
protect the "little guy" (which now in my definition does include  
even the
largest ISP, although it did not at one time) I'm given answers which  
don't
address the question.  (Spin)  But I'm left with the impression that  
providing
support for the "little guy" is not necessarily a "good thing".

So, the consolidation of the internet is happening.  If Comcast and SBC
end up being the only two major players, one might view that as a  
"good thing" for
certain router companies, and those companies that thought deploying
multicast was "too hard" will just fade away.

In the mean time, Comcast is making a lot of money with their  
monopoly over
land-based cable and they have to put themselves in a position to  
fight off the
Dish network and SBCs DSL.  The "commodity" ISPs are being squeezed  
tighter and
tighter and at some point will disappear.

The fact that this prevents "us" (those on this list who think mcast  
is 'cool')
from seeing any content delivered from anywhere to anywhere is "just  
too bad".

2cents