Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)

[David Meyer <dmm () sprint net>]

Here's my $0.02 on the whole multicast thing. We've been at this
for a number of years now, and robust, ubiquitous multicast
on the internet is really nowhere in sight. Kind of sounds like
QoS, and maybe there's a lesson there (20 years of research and
IETF activity, yielding, well, what?). 

Given the amount of time and resource we've spent on multicast,
the question one might ask is "why hasn't multicast succeeded"?
My guess is that it is because the demand from any of the
potential users of the service just isn't there (not at internet
scales, at least not now). Add to this that there are other,
possibly simpler mechanisms to accomplish much of the
functionality that multicast envisions (e.g. application layer
multicast; this even hits dial-up eyes with no modification),
problems with billing models, and difficultly in deploying the
existing set of protocols (too much complexity, broken
architecturally on shared access exchanges, etc), and you might
expect just about what we've experienced.    

Dave

On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:56:34AM -0700, David Sinn wrote:
> > Cynical/realist, it's a fine line.
> >
> > While p0rn does drive a lot of the utilization on the net, I doubt that
> > the those content providers are going to be happy with sending their
> > content un-protected across the net for anyone (paying or not) to see.
> > So now you are into a encryption issue where you need to insure the
> > receiving end can securely receive the encryption key and not share it.
> > Not insurmountable, but not (that I'm aware of) possible with today's
> > applications.
> >
> > The upshot is today's client applications need to grow to add these and
> > other discussed features and functions to help the content providers.
> >
> > David
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe St Sauver [mailto:JOE () OREGON UOREGON EDU] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:55 AM
> > To: David Sinn
> > Cc: bicknell () ufp org; nanog () merit edu
> > Subject: Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > There is also a "cart and horse" issue here:  Where is the pervasive
> > > content?
> >
> > At the risk of sounding somewhat cynical, I suspect the market driver 
> > for IP multicast will be what it often is for these sort of things:
> > pr0n.
> >
> > My prediction? When one of the big adult hosting speciality companies 
> > starts IP multicasting free full length "cable cut" R-rated adult films 
> > in watchable MPEG1 quality, people will begin lobbying their ISP's for 
> > IP multicast support.
> >
> > Evidence supporting this assertion can be found in the popularity of 
> > events such as the Victoria Secret webcast, which reportedly drew 
> > more than a million viewers worldwide, even when streaming video was 
> > being done at postage-stamp-sized resolution. 
> >
> > Of course, at the same time the pr0n channels get rolled out, there will
> >
> > also need to be something innocuous, like the "Field Hockey Channel" or
> > the "Brand-New-Bands-Live!-From-Small-Clubs Channel" so that people will
> >
> > be able to use those less-embarassing content choices as their nominal 
> > interest when calling to request IP multicast support: "Um, hi, my
> > friends
> > who connect via ISP Foo up the street tell me that if you do something
> > to
> > your network I can get the, uh, Field Hockey channel via IC muteypast.
> > I'm, 
> > uh, a real big field hockey fan, and I'd really love to be able to
> > watch, 
> > uh, field hockey on my PC."
> >
> > > Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their
> > > billing model.  They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given
> > > moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other things
> > > that unicast allows them to determine and more importantly bill their
> > > advertisers for.  
> >
> > That's why they'll go ahead and use it as a tease/for the free publicity
> > they'll get if they're the first ones to do it. People have spent a lot
> > more on publicity stunts that would get a lot less coverage than this 
> > sort of thing would.
> >
> > > There is no Nielsen's Ratings for multicast so that advertisers could 
> > > get a feel for how many eyeballs they are going to hit.
> >
> > Some IP multicast products *do* offer the ability to track viewership 
> > (albeit at the cost of some degradation to IP multicast's otherwise 
> > essentially perfect scalability). Cisco's StreamWatch is one example
> > that 
> > comes to mind. 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Joe