Hello,
are you suggesting that there is no multicast problem :-)
and that is the ordinary unicast problems related to ressource reservation
and by expanding the capacity of servers and also of the link bandwidth that
problem will be solved. :-)
thanx
Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Ali;
>
> > Hello,
> > First the CBT protocol was created to use shared tree solutions because
> > DVMRP and the other dense mode protocols werent scalable. there were
> > many problems with CBT (which is bidirectional) so PIM-SM was cretaed
> > which provide some switching (between shared tree and source tree). and
> > after that there is some discussions about the bidirectional PIM, which
> > is like CBT.
> > Are we in circle here or what ??
>
> If there were some progress somewhere, you might be able say "circle".
>
> But, in IETF, no proposal makes any sense that there is absolutely
> no movement.
>
> Here, you are on a point behind a start line.
>
> SSM is no different.
>
> The real difficulty of multicast is in the various relationships
> to resource reservation.
>
> I've heard that ISPs, which were expecting to receive special charge
> for multicast service, are now bitterly recognizing one aspect of the
> relationship that, even if multicast is free, customers do not bother
> to use multicast if they pay flat rate to receive any amount of unicast
> traffic
>
> Those serving the customers simply increase the number of capacity
> of servers, of course.
>
> Masataka Ohta
