All things related to multicast

[Leonard Giuliano <>]

On Thu, 13 May 2004, Bill Owens wrote:

-) On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 04:24:36PM -0400, Richard Mavrogeanes wrote:
-) > My two cents:
-) >
-) > Multicast is not used more often because:
-) >
-) > 1. The default condition of virtually all routers is to disable 
multicast.
-) . . .
-)
-) All true, and I certainly know that multicast is not an easy thing to
-) configure, manage and repair (or even understand!) but I'm
-) intentionally preaching the choir here. I wasn't asking why Joe Public
-) doesn't use multicast more often, I was asking why *we* don't use it
-) more often.
-)

I would echo earlier sentiment that just providing simple voice teleconf
isn't worth the hassle of using mcast or even IP.  Or put another way, if
you are sitting at your desk, will you use your cell phone or your land
line?  I always use a land line bc the quality is much better- for a
stationary phone call, you just can't beat the PSTN.  However, if I'm in a
car, I use a cell phone bc, well, it's the best/only option.  I am willing
to sacrifice a little quality to get the feature of mobility.

I don't think mcast will ever displace things that are "grandma-proof";
things like the phone or television as we currently know it.  Where mcast
will succeed is where these technologies fall short, where certain
annoyances will be willingly sacrificed in order to gain new
functionality- like providing TV content for channels 1000 thru
10,000,000- content you just couldn't get from a satellite or cable
company.  Or a few million new radio stations.  Or the multitude of
services we haven't thought of.

You do have a point about whiteboarding, though.  That would be a very
useful tool during most conf calls, and there are plenty of apps out
there.  One thing to remember, though, is that there are plenty of unicast
whiteboard apps, and they don't get used much either...

But I think you are on target at suggesting we should go out of our way to
start eating our own dogfood!


-Lenny