North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
> Do i miss something perhaps :-) > Please. Caching is _at least_ as efficient as multicasting (multicasting > _is_ caching, with zero retention time) - w/o associated security and > scalability problems. Great, please do clue me in. I wasn't aware that you'd corrected all the issues with caching, and somehow defied physics wrt the process of "duplicate bits" on a wire not actually utilizing b/w. > Presenting L2/L3 multicasting as the best or the only > or even a meaningful way to reduce transmission duplication is quite wrong. I don't recall anyone doing that. They're both good ideas, they both need work. > A primary concern is the absense (and most likely, impossibility) of any L2/L3 > multicast routing scheme capable of supporting any significant number of > mcast trees. Oh, and caching has no problems? I believe they're addressing two _slightly_ different problems. > Scalability on the Internet pretty much means that algorithms should run in > O(log(N)**M) where N is the total number of end-points and M is constant. > (Note that non-CIDR unicast routing doesn't fit this criterion, but CIDR does). Perhaps O(log(N)**M) does apply to unicast, but the multicast model should differ. I'd agree that in an ideal state, sure, looks good, but... > The benefits of mining cheap cheese on the Moon are quite obvious. If you're > willing to overlook the small fact that the Moon isn't made from cheese. I'm with Brett, never been to the moon.. > _No_ technological advances can help the fact that L2/L3 multicasts cannot > be routed in a scalable fashion. Think what happens when there is 1mil > multicast trees in the network. and 10 billion caching servers won't give you even one extra bit to the end-user. -danny