All things related to multicast

["Michael Hallgren" <>]

> 
> On Thu, 13 May 2004, Chris Rapier wrote:
> 
> > Tom Pusateri wrote:
> > > Their choice will be either the easiest or the cheapest and this 
> > > depends on how well the application is written and who's 
> footing the bill.
> >
> > I realy think this is a main reason but I'd also have to include 
> > inertia. People
> 
> A big part of it is interia, but that isn't the cause.  It's 
> more the result.

In spite of that the network I'm working for -- Teleglobe -- currently does 
not (any longer) provide Mcast services as standard, when attempting to make
customers (mainly content providers and ISPs) and future such think positive

about Mcast I tend to mention server resource savings (when talking to
content providers). 

Thoughts?

Enough interest in, and fair return from effort, could (my personal point of

view, not speaking for the company) trigger Mcast services (re-)born. (In
that 
context, any experiences in this community from running Mcast -- cisco 
boxes -- over MPLS? Design choices made, etc, all warmly welcome.)

mh


> 
> In my observation, multicast still carries the bandwidth 
> stigma.  If I mention multicast to any ISP or local network 
> admin I run into, the resulting comment is very similar: "Oh, 
> that requires a lot of bandwidth."
> 
> The discussion then generally boils down to me pointing out 
> the their USENet news server will generally out-use a 
> connection many more times than multicast could ever.  Once 
> that point is conceded, it's now down to figuring out where 
> the applications are, and again getting over the stigma that 
> existing multicast apps are just some other academia-nerd tool.
> 
> [snip]
> > conference calls is that the other person *can't* see you press the 
> > mute button, doodle, or make exasperated faces.
> 
> Conference calls will probably be the magic application that 
> will push multicast out from it's sheltered existence, but 
> even then, I don't see that many people wanting to do that 
> ("Wow!  I really do look goofy in front of a camera...I'm not 
> doing that again!") ....
> 
> wfms
> 
>