All things related to multicast

[Joel Jaeggli <>]

On Thu, 13 May 2004, Alan Crosswell wrote:

> Hmmm.  Multicast NNTP.  Now there's an idea!

it's been done.
 
> William F. Maton wrote:
> > 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 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
> 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Joel Jaeggli           Unix Consulting         

    
GPG Key Fingerprint:     5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2