On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 08:35 -0600, Michael Halcrow wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 04:34:11PM -0700, Michael L Torrie wrote: > > Months ago there was discussion about peer-to-peer streaming. I > > know Michael Halcrow and others were participating in this > > discussion. > > After having spent some time reading research papers in a > graduate-level networking protocols class, I am absolutely convinced > that multicast routing is the best answer to the problem that P2P > streaming is attempting to solve. We would do better to focus on > overlay networks that implement such features than on these myriad > random one-off projects that really constitute a technologically > inferior solution (a "hack" or a "kludge"). > > For some examples of what you can do with multicast technology, read > these: > > http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm98/tp/paper05.pdf > http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/lam/Vita/IEEE/WongLam99.pdf > http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/lam/Vita/ACM/WGL98.pdf > > That last paper has been superseded by another scheme that operates > more on an subtree-exclusionary basis; I'll have to see if I can't dig > up the paper for that. And if you're wondering just how it can be > feasible to deploy such sweeping changes on non-overlay networks: > > http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigcomm/sigcomm2005/paper-RatShe.pdf > > Mike
IPv6 solves those issues by requiring routers to support multicast routing. One reason to move away from ipv4. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
