bandwidth (was Re: AG reservation)

[Ivan R. Judson]

A small historical note:

People have been making this technology require less and less of the bridge
type technology; from the beginning with DVMRP, and mrouted's (where mrouted
was tunneled to other mrouted's) and the first Mbone where the whole thing
was tunnels, people have known this was the wrong solution.

This is why native multicast has been developed...

--Ivan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov [mailto:owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov]On
> Behalf Of Tony Rimovsky
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 1999 11:22 AM
> To: Tom Coffin
> Cc: ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
> Subject: Re: bandwidth (was Re: AG reservation)
>
>
> In my opinion, the 'magic' of bridges should be limited to the greatest
> extent possible.  If a site can use native multicast, it should.
> If a site
> doesn't have native multicast, it should be working on it.  As Bill
> mentioned on the moo a couple of weeks ago, for about $3000 in
> hardware, any
> site can be fully multicast capable.
>
> Don't get me wrong.  The bridges have saved the bacon of many
> demos and will
> be of great utility until the wide-area performance/stability issues get
> resolved .  However, there are scaling and design issues involved with any
> sort of widespread deployment of the bridging, and I do not thing
> one of the
> access-grid goals should be to create a variation of the MBone tunneling
> mess.
>
> /tsr
>
> On Fri, 01 Oct 1999, Tom Coffin wrote:
>
> > when do we learn the magic of creating our own bridges and sessions?
>