🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <361CBE21.7764A352@tyranny.com>, Chris Rapier typed:


i think we need an Mbone business case FAQ

1/ multicast is in use
2/ the public domain mbone tools (vic, vat, wb, rat, ivs etc) are in
use
3/ the mbone is a virtual overlay net -= parts of the internet are
runnign "full metal jacket service ip multicast" and using multicast
for applications today
4/ real time is orthogonal to multicast - ip realtime (int-serv,
diffserv) is not a mature technology - it is 7 years younger than ip
multicast......
5/ overprovisioned pieces of the internet run both multicast and
realtime just fine - few are overprovisioned enough to allow much
unicast real time video just yet - real audio, yes, but not video
6/ a lot of the CODECs in mbone tools and a lot of the playout
adaption algorithms are WAY better than allegedly commercial products
(esp. in ip telephony) - there are a few notable exceptions....someone
ought to list these....
7/ see 1


cheers

 >>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.

 cheers

   jon