Subject: Re: [AMT] mboned: Re: [AMT] AMT scalabilty for sending sites

From: John Zwiebel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:56:36 -0800

On Mar 23, 2006, at 7:03 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> I don't think AMT hosts/gateways will even try to source heavy  
> multicast streams:

If it isn't "heavy" there's no reason to multicast it.

The goal of AMT is to provide receivers for "heavy" sources to expand  
the diameter of
native multicast to the point that AMT disappears.   At that point  
all the "light"
applications won't have to worry about whether or not there is an AMT  
tunnel.  There
must be thousands of receivers for a given stream before multicast  
becomes necessary
rather than just "cool".

Trying to support sourcing will only delay AMT deployment and  
complicate the protocol
guaranteeing interoperability problems.

To underscore the need for pushing for a quick deployment, one might  
look at such
issues as the desire to charge for email delivery.  That sort of mind  
set is one that
will want to balkanize the internet so that the only place you can  
get your high-bw
source is directly from your service provider who will limit you to  
the same 100
channels of cable-TV crap you have now.

If that happens the "light" applications you want to service won't be  
able to get
out of their box.  Multicast from anywhere to anywhere will be dead.

>
> If we don't allow sourcing, we'll be limiting the AMT applicability  
> to those boring applications we know today, instead of allowing  
> room for innovative new apps :-).
>
If the spec says "MAY" support source, that provides a two-step  
approach for making
something happen.  It doesn't preclude your desire to serve "light"  
applications
while it doesn't weigh down the push to support "heavy" apps.

_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/