nanog mailing list archives
Re: IXP - PNI
From: Paul Vixie <vixie () isc org>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:56:40 +0000
The construct also doesn't scale well for multicast traffic exchange if there's a significant number of multicast peers even though the traffic might be low for individual source ASNs. On the other hand, if the IXP doesn't use IGMP/MLD snooping capable switches, then I suppose it doesn't matter.
the people who do massive volumes of multicast in my experience have also been the ones whose network policies, or unicast traffic volumes, or both, prevented them from joining CSMA peering fabrics. CSMA assumes a large number of small flows, which is not what i see in the multicast market, but i admit that i'm not as involved as i used to be.
Current thread:
- Re: IXP, (continued)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Bill Woodcock (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Arnold Nipper (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP kris foster (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Arnold Nipper (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP kris foster (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP - PNI bmanning (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP - PNI Antonio Querubin (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP - PNI Joe Greco (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP - PNI bmanning (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP - PNI Paul Vixie (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Arnold Nipper (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Arnold Nipper (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Nathan Ward (Apr 17)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 17)