nanog mailing list archives
Re: Readiness for IPV6
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:49:04 +0200
Niels Bakker wrote:It would also be nice if operators with end users started offering native multicast. Although the AMS-IX multicast initiative started off with lots of enthusiasm, two years later it seems to have died almost completely.
* pete () he iki fi (Petri Helenius) [Tue 09 Jul 2002, 15:27 CEST]:
Most multicast projects go this way. The reason usually being one or more of; A) ISP's want to charge extra for multicast B) No content is being served over multicast C) Firewalls do not pass multicast (usually non-issue on home users)
Indeed. I'm personally most amazed that B) companies like shoutcast.com (who must be spending fortunes on bandwidth for all their streams) aren't pushing multicast more. Cheers, -- Niels.
Current thread:
- Readiness for IPV6 Phil Rosenthal (Jul 08)
- Re: Readiness for IPV6 Alif The Terrible (Jul 08)
- RE: Readiness for IPV6 Phil Rosenthal (Jul 08)
- RE: Readiness for IPV6 Alif The Terrible (Jul 08)
- Re: Readiness for IPV6 Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino (Jul 08)
- RE: Readiness for IPV6 Daniel Golding (Jul 09)
- Re: Readiness for IPV6 Jared Mauch (Jul 09)
- RE: Readiness for IPV6 Phil Rosenthal (Jul 08)
- Re: Readiness for IPV6 Alif The Terrible (Jul 08)
- Re: Readiness for IPV6 Niels Bakker (Jul 09)
- Message not available
- Re: Readiness for IPV6 Niels Bakker (Jul 09)
- multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Jared Mauch (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Leo Bicknell (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Chris Parker (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Leo Bicknell (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) John Kristoff (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Chris Parker (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) David Charlap (Jul 09)
- Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) Pete Kruckenberg (Jul 11)