Comments on: RFC 5790 – Lightweight IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Protocols – Another Shot at Multicast but Why ? http://etherealmind.com/another-shot-at-multicast/ Network design, architecture, thinking, working. Tech. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:43:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ace http://etherealmind.com/another-shot-at-multicast/#comment-1828 Ace Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:37:16 +0000 http://etherealmind.com/another-shot-at-multicast/#comment-1828 You say this because you work private sector. Public sector is big into up-to-the-minute news and Multicast perfectly delivers that. Using 4500s as building distribution switches, it works pretty damn good. Stream LIVE (yes, many people want live, not short segments) CNN on a few big screens and people are happy. You say this because you work private sector. Public sector is big into up-to-the-minute news and Multicast perfectly delivers that. Using 4500s as building distribution switches, it works pretty damn good. Stream LIVE (yes, many people want live, not short segments) CNN on a few big screens and people are happy.

]]> By: Colin http://etherealmind.com/another-shot-at-multicast/#comment-1827 Colin Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:12:29 +0000 http://etherealmind.com/another-shot-at-multicast/#comment-1827 There's plenty of applications that can utilise multicast to be more efficient and reduce burden to the network. Too many people get caught up in the idea of consumers and video on demand etc. One example you may not have thought of: stock ticking. It's a (relatively) low volume one way feed that people consume but don't get involved with otherwise. Yet if you have hundreds of thousands of customers each wanting the same feed the infrastructure cost to support a unique feed to each is quite high even if you're using UDP and not TCP. There’s plenty of applications that can utilise multicast to be more efficient and reduce burden to the network. Too many people get caught up in the idea of consumers and video on demand etc. One example you may not have thought of: stock ticking. It’s a (relatively) low volume one way feed that people consume but don’t get involved with otherwise. Yet if you have hundreds of thousands of customers each wanting the same feed the infrastructure cost to support a unique feed to each is quite high even if you’re using UDP and not TCP.

]]> By: Because it works http://etherealmind.com/another-shot-at-multicast/#comment-1826 Because it works Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:05:39 +0000 http://etherealmind.com/another-shot-at-multicast/#comment-1826 While I get it multicast seems like overhead, it works and has for a long time. There are new protocols because things change and so do the requirements. Mutlicast for VoIP, Video, corporate training, financial applications, the list goes on. The comments just reminds me of a Cisco employee I spoke with a long time ago who said EIGRP is perfect who needs anything else. Reality is lots of people, and not every block fits every hole. If you were to knock on the door of 1000 business in NYC or San Fran or Chicago or London or Tokyo, at least 250 use multicast regularly and probably another 250 do but don't really know it. While I get it multicast seems like overhead, it works and has for a long time. There are new protocols because things change and so do the requirements. Mutlicast for VoIP, Video, corporate training, financial applications, the list goes on.

The comments just reminds me of a Cisco employee I spoke with a long time ago who said EIGRP is perfect who needs anything else. Reality is lots of people, and not every block fits every hole. If you were to knock on the door of 1000 business in NYC or San Fran or Chicago or London or Tokyo, at least 250 use multicast regularly and probably another 250 do but don’t really know it.

]]>