At 09:29 PM 6/23/01, nrf wrote:
>hello gang:
>
>I hope some experts like Howard Berkowitz can respond:
>
>question - what is the status of multicasting on the Internet today? Both
>technically, and non-technically?
>
>I understand that the first iteration involved some version of PIM (probably
>sparse-dense)
PIM is quite new. The first iteration involved DVMRP only.
>in an internal network, connected to the MBONE vie DVMRP
>tunnels . Many experts disliked this method due to the inherent lack of
>scalability of DVMRP and, I believe, there was also no standard way to
>allocate group addresses (only via SDR/SAP, I believe)
>
>So, the second iteration consisted of, once again, PIM (almost certainly
>sparse-dense) used in an internal network, but with MBGP to connect to the
>Internet and MSDP to locate other sources while still providing RP placement
>flexibility.
Is this really happening though? Perhaps ISPs and large enterprises use
it.... None of my customers use it, but that's not saying much. I'm in
Southern Oregon.
>And I also thought MASC/MADCAP was an attempt to solve the
>whole address allocation problem (but it still leaves several problems
>unresolved, like how to allocate addresses fairly).
>
>But now I've noticed yet another group of technologies emerging - BGMP
>(which I am told is supposed to be better than MSDP/MBGP, but I don't yet
>understand how it is better), bidirectional PIM (which seems to be another
>name for CBT), and SSM with IGMP V3 (which still leaves open the question
>that how would you know who to block and who not to block?). Plus, I seem
>to see less emphasis on CGMP, and more emphasis on RGMP and IGMP snooping.
>
>
>But the bottom line is that I still don't see too many widespread
>consumer-uses of multicasting. I only see real-world uses of multicasting
>within companies (financial information in investment companies), or, across
>the Internet, meetings of standards bodies.
Meetings of standards bodies use it, as you say. MacWorld broadcasts Steve
Jobs key note every year. I don't know what technology they use, though.
>But, for example, I don't see anything like the Superbowl or the World
>Series being delivered via multicast.
Because it's still way too irritating to the average user. Why look at a
small, jerky screen when we can look at the ever-reliable large-screen TV?
But it will come with time. One thing missing is high bandwidth on the
edge, but that problem is going away quickly. My house, for example, is on
a 100-Mbps Ethernet MAN with single-mode fiber optic cabling! Seriously.
Priscilla
> OK, OK, that's because of corporate
>licensing restrictions, but I think you see my point, I don't see a whole
>lot of multicasting that delivers information of interest to the average
>user.
>
>
>So, are these new multicasting technologies becoming very popular, and if
>so, why (and if not, why not)? And will these technologies make Internet
>multicasting more wide-spread, or does that have to do with things like
>politics, money, and that kind of thing (layer 8 of the OSI model)?
>Exactly what is happening with Internet multicasting?
>
>Thanx
>
>NRF
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=9829&t=9655
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
