absense of multicast deployment

On 3-Mar-2006, at 11:48, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> That depends on your perspective.  There's a
compelling need for  
> usable multicast in many environments, and so far
there's nobody  
> (in the US) with a compelling need for IPv6, much less
shim6.

If there's such a compelling need for native multicast, why
has it  
seen such limited deployment, and why is it available to
such a tiny  
proportion of the Internet?


Joe

Hello;

By everything I can tell, it's roughly about 10% for global
 
deployment, see

http://www.multic
asttech.com/status

and is becoming basically BCP in the enterprise IPTV
environment  
(which are currently all
"walled gardens"). (Note that this deployment is
effectively entirely  
ASM / IGMP v2.)

By any measure, multicast deployment is much larger than
IPv6  
deployment at present, and it is growing.
I will be glad to argue the point to any length you might
desire.

Of course, the deployment did not exactly take the form that
was  
anticipated in 2000...

Regards
Marshall


On Mar 3, 2006, at 3:42 PM, Joe Abley wrote:

>
> On 3-Mar-2006, at 11:48, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> That depends on your perspective.  There's a
compelling need for  
>> usable multicast in many environments, and so far
there's nobody  
>> (in the US) with a compelling need for IPv6, much
less shim6.
>
> If there's such a compelling need for native
multicast, why has it  
> seen such limited deployment, and why is it available
to such a  
> tiny proportion of the Internet?
>
>
> Joe
>

On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 04:02:00PM -0500, Marshall Eubanks
wrote:
> By everything I can tell, it's roughly about 10% for
global  
> deployment, see
> 
> http://www.multic
asttech.com/status

10% by one measure.  That is perhaps the most positive spin
on
what we can see.  All that tells us is the AS view.  To some
extent netblocks, but that is really still based on origin
AS
also. It says nothing about which interfaces inside and
behind
an AS have PIM enabled and that is what really matters.  I
suspect
real multicast reachability and deployment is quite a bit
lower than
10%.  I have no idea how to go about measuring it though,
but 10%
would have to be the best we could do if all hidden
interfaces were
enabed.

> By any measure, multicast deployment is much larger
than IPv6  
> deployment at present, and it is growing.
> I will be glad to argue the point to any length you
might desire.

You know me Marshall, I care about multicast, but I'm not
sure
I'd go around comparing multicast to IPv6, that doesn't
help.  

John

JA> Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:42:25 -0500
JA> From: Joe Abley

JA> If there's such a compelling need for native
multicast, why has it
JA> seen such limited deployment, and why is it available
to such a tiny
JA> proportion of the Internet?

One could ask the same of long-prefix PI availability and
announcement.  
Lack of demand is not the only answer; one must also examine
technical 
and policy constraints.

Taking your statement a step further, though, you have a
very good 
point:  A smart approach is to analyze end-user wishes and
demands, 
transform the "wish list" into engineering
requirements, and take it 
from there.  (e.g., just what is the global table asymptotic
limit?)


Eddy
--
Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network
building
Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
____________________________________________________________
____________
DO NOT send mail to the following addresses:
davidcbrics.com -*- jfconmaapaqintc.net -*- sameverquick.net
Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get
blocked.
Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software
backscatter.

On 3 mar 2006, at 22.02, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> By any measure, multicast deployment is much larger
than IPv6  
> deployment at present, and it is growing.
> I will be glad to argue the point to any length you
might desire.

There are also operators that are deploying IPv6 just so
that they  
can do multicast to their end-users without have to figure
out how to  
run it through NAT. As was discussed at the last SANOG in
some of the  
workshops.

- kurtis -