🚀 go-pugleaf

Andy McConnell wrote:
> 
> Like a lot of ISPs who offer news and dns secondaries at no additional
> charge, MBONE should be a part of that suite of services.

Lance, 

I would have to agree with agree with Andy on this under the assumption that
your users would just be recipients and not originators of content. To be
perfectly honest there is still some question as to MBONEs ability to compete
against Real Video and its ilk in a commercial environment. While it is, for
the most part, effective for talks, classes and the like it would have limited
usefulness for most internet consumers. However, providing MBONE broadcast
connectivity for corporate presentations or as some sort of value added
service might be feasible.

Chris Rapier
Network Programmer
NCNE

Chris Rapier wrote:

To be
> perfectly honest there is still some question as to MBONEs ability to compete
> against Real Video and its ilk in a commercial environment. 

These are not competing technologies - multimedia applications can and do utilize 
multicast services - and the better quality these multicast services are - the better off the
quality of the transmission, whatever the application.

While it is, for
> the most part, effective for talks, classes and the like it would have limited
> usefulness for most internet consumers.

Wrong. Do you want to pass 10,000 copies of the next Starr report or just one?
How about the daily news? Stock quotes? The John Glenn mission?, your next
app upgrade? a training class?   Lot's of people are using multicast in
innovative ways to conserve network resources wisely, this can be done even
without an external business reason, it's just smart engineering.

 However, providing MBONE broadcast
> connectivity for corporate presentations or as some sort of value added
> service might be feasible.

Multicast is being used widely in the enterprise space already.

- John

Chris Rapier wrote:
>
> I still do not think MBONE and MBONE applications are a mature technology nor
> do I think there currently exists the business incentive to develop them
> fully.
[clip] 
 However, please prove me wrong. Show me it is a
> serious competitor. I would rather that it was and that I am misinformed.

Remember when folks said the same thing about Mosaic 
and that web thing?
:-)

- John

I feel I must jump in here.  Multicast networking is very much in use in
a production environment.  Audio and Video may be what everyone sees and
talks about,
but do not underestimate the market for data distribution.  There are a
growing
number of customers who buy numerous connections, to run multicast.  They 
need to shovel around data, reports, audio and video clips.  Many times
it's cheaper to
get Internet connections than to create a private network... and we take care
of the packet replication.  This ranges from Retail stores pumping around
price lists to major broadcasters moving audio and video clips to their
affiliates.
This is why they made MFTP.  ;)  These customers pay good money to save
money.  

But... while we're talking about audio and video.  Real Networks has
implemented
multicast in their servers and clients.  It's been around since Real Server
5.0.
We use it.  You can't tune in with Vic and Vat last I checked, but
you can with a Real Player.  You multicast to anyone who can join and unicast
to the rest.

Do we charge for multicast?  No.  I don't know that it makes sense.  If we
charge our customers, you charge your customers, and we interconnect in
multicast...
do we charge each other?  A domain I don't want to touch with a 1000' pole.  
I personally don't want to wall off my multicast network.

Just my opinions.  Multicast can make you money, even when you don't charge
for it.

Doug Pasko
Cable & Wireless Internet Engineering
	...the network formerly known as internetMCI  :)



At 09:29 AM 10/8/98 -0400, Chris Rapier wrote:
>My apologies for disagreeing. I'll just blame it on the fever.
>
>I still do not think MBONE and MBONE applications are a mature technology nor
>do I think there currently exists the business incentive to develop them
>fully.
>
>This does not mean that I feel MBONE technology is a waste or stupid or
>useless only that it is not a serious competitor in most markets. If someone
>is planning on charging for MBONE services *and* expects to make any profit
>off of it they better have a good way to convince people to install vic and
>vat or other multicast aware software (eg. get microsoft or real networks to
>include support for it in their next version of their network media foo
(or in
>the channels or whatever)). However, please prove me wrong. Show me it is a
>serious competitor. I would rather that it was and that I am misinformed.
> 

My apologies for disagreeing. I'll just blame it on the fever.

I still do not think MBONE and MBONE applications are a mature technology nor
do I think there currently exists the business incentive to develop them
fully.

This does not mean that I feel MBONE technology is a waste or stupid or
useless only that it is not a serious competitor in most markets. If someone
is planning on charging for MBONE services *and* expects to make any profit
off of it they better have a good way to convince people to install vic and
vat or other multicast aware software (eg. get microsoft or real networks to
include support for it in their next version of their network media foo (or in
the channels or whatever)). However, please prove me wrong. Show me it is a
serious competitor. I would rather that it was and that I am misinformed.

John Meylor wrote:
> 
> Chris Rapier wrote:
> >
> > I still do not think MBONE and MBONE applications are a mature technology nor
> > do I think there currently exists the business incentive to develop them
> > fully.
> [clip]
>  However, please prove me wrong. Show me it is a
> > serious competitor. I would rather that it was and that I am misinformed.
> 
> Remember when folks said the same thing about Mosaic
> and that web thing?

Interesting comparison, as both emerged into the "technical public" at
roughly the same time (1992). Care to compare relative success :-)?

At 01:37 PM 10/8/98 -0400, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>John Meylor wrote:
>> 
>> Chris Rapier wrote:
>> >
>> > I still do not think MBONE and MBONE applications are a mature
technology nor
>> > do I think there currently exists the business incentive to develop them
>> > fully.
>> [clip]
>>  However, please prove me wrong. Show me it is a
>> > serious competitor. I would rather that it was and that I am misinformed.
>> 
>> Remember when folks said the same thing about Mosaic
>> and that web thing?
>
>Interesting comparison, as both emerged into the "technical public" at
>roughly the same time (1992). Care to compare relative success :-)?

I think this is an apples to orangutans comparison.  Mosaic was an
extremely compelling application that could use an existing infrastructure
(unicast Internet) to become widely popular.  

Once we get a multicast Internet infrastructure in place to some degree,
some multicast application is likely to do the same.  I personally don't
think that the application will be video.  I've long held that an
audio-conference app with WB or other similar data-sharing, multicast
application is a much more possible candidate for the "killer" app.  If and
when Microsoft bundles this sort of simplistic multicast-based, meeting
application into WinXX, I think the demand for multicast will really take
off.  Given the current bandwidth of the Internet, widespread use of
multicast video applications seems like a nonstarter to me.

Beau Williamson

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> 
> Interesting comparison, as both emerged into the "technical public" at
> roughly the same time (1992). Care to compare relative success :-)?

The web required development of an application which used
existing unicast services.

Multicast requires the development of both the applications
as well as deployment of the underlying multicast services,
this is a far greater engineering challenge, but certainly
offers no less opportunity, perhaps more, for those who
understand this.


- John

tough comparison,

when mosaic hit the streets everyone instantly understood it
and it exploded onto the network.  multicast is a wonderful
technology but it's proponents have been searching
for an mass appeal application for years.  it's elegance is
lost on the common man so let's declare victory and get on with
it already.  i'm quite happy to use it as a support
tool as well as a tool to deliver real time audio/video and mass
file distribution.

John Meylor wrote:

> Chris Rapier wrote:
> >
> > I still do not think MBONE and MBONE applications are a mature technology nor
> > do I think there currently exists the business incentive to develop them
> > fully.
> [clip]
>  However, please prove me wrong. Show me it is a
> > serious competitor. I would rather that it was and that I am misinformed.
>
> Remember when folks said the same thing about Mosaic
> and that web thing?
> :-)
>
> - John