it says:
"You need the X-Window System (X11R6 either X11R5
either Sun openwin). "
and
"Your machine and your network must support local
IP Multicast (IGMP).
Your site must be connected on the MBone with
routing protocols as DVMRP or PIM. "
which would eliminate a bunch of folks ;^}
jeffs
--
Jeff Sonstein
Assistant Professor of Information Technology
Rochester Institute of Technology
---------------------------------------------
http://ariadne.iz.net/
http://www.it.rit.edu/~jxs/
http://ariadne.iz.net/~jeffs/jeffs.asc
=============================================
there are no bugs
there are just undocumented features
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 12:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: VNet revisions and multicast
> Importance: Low
>
>
>
>
> has anyone checked out
> the vreng ive talked about
> i think its worth while looing at this too
> it uses the multicast ideal
>
> its pretty sweet
> in a technical way anyhow
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/vreng
>
>
> Time Co-Ordinate Fri, 18 May 2001 10:59:05 -0500, The Organism labeled
> Christopher K. St. John said:
>
> >> Miriam English wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I have some ideas on that too. I have a feeling that
> >> > absorbing the server stuff into the client stuff and
> >> > running it all on the client machine may be the solution
> >> > to this.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That doesn't work well in practice. It has to do with the
> >> varying bandwidth between users, and the difficulty of
> >> maintaining a reasonable set of peer interconnections.
> >> It's a math issue, not an implementation issue.
> >>
> >> Multiuser systems running over the internet work much,
> >> much better with a central server architecture. If you
> >> want to get fancy (and very complex) you can use a set of
> >> central servers (SOCS?:-) with high bandwidth
> >> interconnections instead of a single central server. If
> >> you want to get very fancy and even more complex, you can
> >> have some of the SOCS also be clients. If you want overly
> >> fancy and very brittle, but buzzword compliant, you can
> >> have the interconnection topology of the SOCS be dynamic.
> >>
> >> But it's all the same in the end, innit? Almost everybody
> >> ends up on the client-only side of things and you're back
> >> to client/server.
> >>
> >> Multicast doesn't help, because the problem is the
> >> clients, and the clients are (generally) all out on their
> >> own individual networks, so multicast degenerates into
> >> singlecast, and you're no better off than before. OTOH,
> >> for the client/set-of-central-servers architecture,
> >> multicast is a cool implementation hack.
> >>
> >> There have been some good articles about how Quake handles
> >> the problem (the central server maintains perfect state
> >> info, and then filters the updates individually for every
> >> connection). I seem to remember Origin uses the
> >> set-of-central-servers architecture for UOL.
> >>
> >> Best solution: single central server and accept the fact
> >> that it's better to have a limited but simple and useful
> >> system, than an overly complex buzzword compliant system
> >> with "unlimited" scalability.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Christopher St. John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> DistribuTopia http://www.distributopia.com
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
