Discussion:
Multicast status in New Zealand
(too old to reply)
Cameron Kerr
2003-06-26 04:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Hello, I work as a teaching fellow in Telecommunications, teaching
small-time network management and network programming.

I am currently trying to learn more about multicast (IPv4 now, v6
later), in preparation for teaching multicast programming half way
through the second semester. However, in the course we won't be
connected to the internet, so I'm using my own home network to advance
my understanding.

I have a few questions about the current state of affairs wrt ISPs and
content in New Zealand.

1) What broadband (and dial-up, for completeness) ISPs are multicast
capable/friendly? Particularly Orcon, since our flat has just moved
there.

2) What is needed to activate it at the users end (anything
they need to do with mbone etc), or does the ISP deal with that?

3) Is there much in the way of content available?

4) Are there issues with NAT??? (I have a Nokia M1122 doing NAT, with Linux
router/firewall behind it)

Or alternatively, is there any documentation that answers these
questions in the New Zealand environment. (If not, I'd be willing to
help write/test.)

Thank you all.
--
Cameron Kerr
***@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
Empowered by Perl!
Dan Clark
2003-06-26 05:00:10 UTC
Permalink
When I first 'trialed' IHug's Satellite service we had access to their
Multicast POP email/news services etc;.
Can't recall if it ever worked or not, maybe someone at IHug might like to
comment on weather or not it is still in existance?

Kind Regards
Dan Clark
Network Manager
Scarfies.Net Ltd


----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Kerr" <***@paradise.net.nz>
To: <***@list.waikato.ac.nz>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:51 PM
Subject: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand


> Hello, I work as a teaching fellow in Telecommunications, teaching
> small-time network management and network programming.
>
> I am currently trying to learn more about multicast (IPv4 now, v6
> later), in preparation for teaching multicast programming half way
> through the second semester. However, in the course we won't be
> connected to the internet, so I'm using my own home network to advance
> my understanding.
>
> I have a few questions about the current state of affairs wrt ISPs and
> content in New Zealand.
>
> 1) What broadband (and dial-up, for completeness) ISPs are multicast
> capable/friendly? Particularly Orcon, since our flat has just moved
> there.
>
> 2) What is needed to activate it at the users end (anything
> they need to do with mbone etc), or does the ISP deal with that?
>
> 3) Is there much in the way of content available?
>
> 4) Are there issues with NAT??? (I have a Nokia M1122 doing NAT, with
Linux
> router/firewall behind it)
>
> Or alternatively, is there any documentation that answers these
> questions in the New Zealand environment. (If not, I'd be willing to
> help write/test.)
>
> Thank you all.
> --
> Cameron Kerr
> ***@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
> Empowered by Perl!
> _______________________________________________
> Nznog mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
Craig Whitmore
2003-06-26 05:02:56 UTC
Permalink
> Hello, I work as a teaching fellow in Telecommunications, teaching
> small-time network management and network programming.
>
> I am currently trying to learn more about multicast (IPv4 now, v6
> later), in preparation for teaching multicast programming half way
> through the second semester. However, in the course we won't be
> connected to the internet, so I'm using my own home network to advance
> my understanding.

A very small part of NZ's Network is Multicast Enabled (a few sites
connected to APE are peering with each other via MBGP), but the (as far as I
know) the Multicast link from Attica to the rest of the world stopped quite
a while ago .

>
> I have a few questions about the current state of affairs wrt ISPs and
> content in New Zealand.
>
> 1) What broadband (and dial-up, for completeness) ISPs are multicast
> capable/friendly? Particularly Orcon, since our flat has just moved
> there.

As Telecom's IPNET and Jetstart/Jetsteam Network is not Multicast Enabled (I
have asked them about it in the past). Its quite hard to give all users
Multicast Access. Multicasting Enablding an ISP's network is quite "complex"
as all devices from the end user -> the internet have to be multicast
Enabled .

>
> 2) What is needed to activate it at the users end (anything
> they need to do with mbone etc), or does the ISP deal with that?

As Windows/MacOS/Linux is already Multicast Enabled then nothing much on the
users end.

>
> 3) Is there much in the way of content available?

If you are connected then there ain't much other than geek type stuff.

>
> 4) Are there issues with NAT??? (I have a Nokia M1122 doing NAT, with
Linux
> router/firewall behind it)


>
> Or alternatively, is there any documentation that answers these
> questions in the New Zealand environment. (If not, I'd be willing to
> help write/test.)
>
> Thank you all.
> --
> Cameron Kerr
> ***@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
> Empowered by Perl!
> _______________________________________________
> Nznog mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
Simon Allard
2003-06-26 05:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Multicast POP email/news worked fine, but in some cases was quite hard to
setup.

Due to lack of demand and customer interest we turned it off.

- Simon Allard

Simon Allard (Senior Systems Programmer)
IHUG
Ph (09) 358-5067 Email: ***@staff.ihug.co.nz

I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....





> When I first 'trialed' IHug's Satellite service we had access to their
> Multicast POP email/news services etc;.
> Can't recall if it ever worked or not, maybe someone at IHug might like to
> comment on weather or not it is still in existance?
>
> Kind Regards
> Dan Clark
> Network Manager
> Scarfies.Net Ltd
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cameron Kerr" <***@paradise.net.nz>
> To: <***@list.waikato.ac.nz>
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:51 PM
> Subject: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
>
>
> > Hello, I work as a teaching fellow in Telecommunications, teaching
> > small-time network management and network programming.
> >
> > I am currently trying to learn more about multicast (IPv4 now, v6
> > later), in preparation for teaching multicast programming half way
> > through the second semester. However, in the course we won't be
> > connected to the internet, so I'm using my own home network to advance
> > my understanding.
> >
> > I have a few questions about the current state of affairs wrt ISPs and
> > content in New Zealand.
> >
> > 1) What broadband (and dial-up, for completeness) ISPs are multicast
> > capable/friendly? Particularly Orcon, since our flat has just moved
> > there.
> >
> > 2) What is needed to activate it at the users end (anything
> > they need to do with mbone etc), or does the ISP deal with that?
> >
> > 3) Is there much in the way of content available?
> >
> > 4) Are there issues with NAT??? (I have a Nokia M1122 doing NAT, with
> Linux
> > router/firewall behind it)
> >
> > Or alternatively, is there any documentation that answers these
> > questions in the New Zealand environment. (If not, I'd be willing to
> > help write/test.)
> >
> > Thank you all.
> > --
> > Cameron Kerr
> > ***@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
> > Empowered by Perl!
> > _______________________________________________
> > Nznog mailing list
> > ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nznog mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
>
Simon Lyall
2003-06-26 05:11:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Dan Clark wrote:
> When I first 'trialed' IHug's Satellite service we had access to their
> Multicast POP email/news services etc;.
> Can't recall if it ever worked or not, maybe someone at IHug might like to
> comment on weather or not it is still in existance?

It worked okay, we phased it out a year or two back since it wasn't worth
maintaining for the very low number of customers using it.

--
Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: ***@ihug.co.nz
Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: ***@darkmere.gen.nz
Ihug Ltd, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz
Nathan Ward
2003-06-26 05:16:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:11:49 +1200 (NZST), Simon Lyall
<***@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Dan Clark wrote:
>> When I first 'trialed' IHug's Satellite service we had access to their
>> Multicast POP email/news services etc;.
>> Can't recall if it ever worked or not, maybe someone at IHug might like
>> to
>> comment on weather or not it is still in existance?
>
> It worked okay, we phased it out a year or two back since it wasn't worth
> maintaining for the very low number of customers using it.
>

IHUG also used to have their United Networks router on the multicast
backbone that Craig mentions... is that still the case?

--
Nathan Ward
Esphion Ltd.
Craig Whitmore
2003-06-26 05:25:35 UTC
Permalink
> >
>
> IHUG also used to have their United Networks router on the multicast
> backbone that Craig mentions... is that still the case?
>

Unless they turned it off then its prob still enabled.(but no content)
(GeorgeFM and BFM where broadcast via Multicast last time I looked). I am
pretty sure I can multicast any of our customers (Orcon) who are connected
via us (non dialup/DSL customers). It would just involve time to get it up
and working on our entire network again and getting a Multicast feed from
overseas setup. But wihtout having a killer ap or connections which can use
them (like Telecom looking into enabling then DialIP/IPNET/Jetstream
Network) 99% of the peopel conencted on these mediums won't see anything)

Thanks
Craig
Simon Allard
2003-06-26 05:28:33 UTC
Permalink
GeorgeFM and BFM Multicast streams are long gone.


> Unless they turned it off then its prob still enabled.(but no content)
> (GeorgeFM and BFM where broadcast via Multicast last time I looked). I am
> pretty sure I can multicast any of our customers (Orcon) who are connected
> via us (non dialup/DSL customers). It would just involve time to get it up
> and working on our entire network again and getting a Multicast feed from
> overseas setup. But wihtout having a killer ap or connections which can use
> them (like Telecom looking into enabling then DialIP/IPNET/Jetstream
> Network) 99% of the peopel conencted on these mediums won't see anything)
>
> Thanks
> Craig
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nznog mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
>

Simon Allard (Senior Tool Monkey)
IHUG
Ph (09) 358-5067 Email: ***@staff.ihug.co.nz

I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Simon Lyall
2003-06-26 05:45:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Craig Whitmore wrote:
> But wihtout having a killer ap or connections which can use
> them (like Telecom looking into enabling then DialIP/IPNET/Jetstream
> Network) 99% of the peopel conencted on these mediums won't see anything)

I'm sure there would be a few people that would jump through the hoops to
get a non-commercial broadcast arrangement with APRA ( I think one person
on this list has something along these lines) if they could multicast
their musical tastes to DSL people.

Last I heard there were commercial/technical problems at Telecom's end
however.

--
Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: ***@ihug.co.nz
Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: ***@darkmere.gen.nz
Ihug Ltd, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz
Donald Neal
2003-06-26 22:02:45 UTC
Permalink
> From: Simon Lyall [mailto:***@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2003 17:46
> To: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> Subject: Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Craig Whitmore wrote:
> > But wihtout having a killer ap or connections which can use
> > them (like Telecom looking into enabling then DialIP/IPNET/Jetstream
> > Network) 99% of the peopel conencted on these mediums won't
> see anything)
>
> I'm sure there would be a few people that would jump through
> the hoops to
> get a non-commercial broadcast arrangement with APRA ( I
> think one person
> on this list has something along these lines) if they could multicast
> their musical tastes to DSL people.

Is anyone able to point me at some such people?

- Donald Neal
Cameron Kerr
2003-06-27 00:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Judging by the responses I recieved, I'm led to believe that no ISPs
currently support multicast.

I'm forced then to consider the MBone. However there is very little in
the way of instructions for connecting to the mbone (all the
instructions say is to start mrouted). However, where does the other
endpoint for the tunnel go? Is anyone here attached to the MBone? Are
there any places you can connect to (preferably in NZ) for free?

I'm starting to think that IPv4 multicast will never come, instead, the
first public offering of multicast capabilities to the general public
will come with IPv6. Afterall, the corporate attitude is the same
towards the two technologies is the same (No-one uses it, so we won't
provide it). Is this a reasonable conclusion do you think?

Thanks for your answers.
--
Cameron Kerr
***@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
Empowered by Perl!
Nathan Ward
2003-06-27 00:45:16 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:22:49 +1200, Cameron Kerr
<***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> Judging by the responses I recieved, I'm led to believe that no ISPs
> currently support multicast.
>
> I'm forced then to consider the MBone. However there is very little in
> the way of instructions for connecting to the mbone (all the
> instructions say is to start mrouted). However, where does the other
> endpoint for the tunnel go? Is anyone here attached to the MBone? Are
> there any places you can connect to (preferably in NZ) for free?
>
> I'm starting to think that IPv4 multicast will never come, instead, the
> first public offering of multicast capabilities to the general public
> will come with IPv6. Afterall, the corporate attitude is the same
> towards the two technologies is the same (No-one uses it, so we won't
> provide it). Is this a reasonable conclusion do you think?
>
> Thanks for your answers.

DISCLAIMER: This email is what I recall, it may be completely incorrect

"The mbone is dead" - Greg Shepherd, Uniforum 2002.

The mbone was a test network. What is left of it now is more of an informal
thing.

Lots of people use multicast internally.

I remember at uniforum it was mentioned that the hold up on multicast in NZ
(read: Telecom ADSL and the like), was that it was hard to charge for.

--
Nathan Ward
Esphion Ltd.
Cameron Kerr
2003-06-27 01:09:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:45:16PM +1200, Nathan Ward wrote:

> "The mbone is dead" - Greg Shepherd, Uniforum 2002.

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this?

I've scoured uniforum.org and uniforum.org.nz but could not find this.

--
Cameron Kerr
***@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
Empowered by Perl!
Nathan Ward
2003-06-27 01:20:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:09:47 +1200, Cameron Kerr
<***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:45:16PM +1200, Nathan Ward wrote:
>
>> "The mbone is dead" - Greg Shepherd, Uniforum 2002.
>
> Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this?
>
> I've scoured uniforum.org and uniforum.org.nz but could not find this.
>

It was his opening line in his multicast talk right after a talk by David
Robb about how cool the mbone was. IIRC.


--
Nathan Ward
Esphion Ltd.
Craig Whitmore
2003-06-27 01:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Orcon, Xtra and Attica, IHUG where talking/connecting via MBGP/msdp @ APE 6+
months ago in various forms so we could broadcast our Multicast Streams etc
to each other, but as there is/was no content it mostly went into
nothingness.

As no (as far as I know) Carriers can give a connection which include
Multicast Access, a Tunnel is needed to someplace overseas to connect to (If
anyone knows of a good place I can set up the tunnel please let me know, so
I can set one up).

Then you have to get it to the users,(The hard part). Customers would have
to run Tunnels to the ISP (as Telecom Jetstream/Jetstart/Dialup) network
can't(or won't) handle it at the moment., but to Frame/UNL etc customers its
pretty easy to do (As long as their routers are set up correctly to handle
Multicast)

Ok, now we have it all setup and working.. So what can we use it for? I
would of presumed Telecom's Jetvideo would use Multicast to send the Radio
Stations/TV to the users, but I presume they are using Unicast so we have
1000 streams to 1000 users instead of 1. Can anyone from Telecom comment on
JetVideo? I never got to talk to the Sales people at places they where
advertising it. (Ice Expo etc)

Thanks
Craig




----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Kerr" <***@paradise.net.nz>
To: <***@list.waikato.ac.nz>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand


> Judging by the responses I recieved, I'm led to believe that no ISPs
> currently support multicast.
>
> I'm forced then to consider the MBone. However there is very little in
> the way of instructions for connecting to the mbone (all the
> instructions say is to start mrouted). However, where does the other
> endpoint for the tunnel go? Is anyone here attached to the MBone? Are
> there any places you can connect to (preferably in NZ) for free?
>
> I'm starting to think that IPv4 multicast will never come, instead, the
> first public offering of multicast capabilities to the general public
> will come with IPv6. Afterall, the corporate attitude is the same
> towards the two technologies is the same (No-one uses it, so we won't
> provide it). Is this a reasonable conclusion do you think?
>
> Thanks for your answers.
> --
> Cameron Kerr
> ***@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
> Empowered by Perl!
> _______________________________________________
> Nznog mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
Richard Naylor
2003-06-27 02:22:42 UTC
Permalink
At 01:48 p.m. 27/06/2003 +1200, David Robb wrote:

<snip>

>Overseas content proved to be largely boring, lossy, and not worth getting
>back when I played with it at ihug. Now this might have changed since
>then, but I suspect that locally generated content is still the way to go.

I used to be able to get a copyright clearance out of TVNZ for streaming
provided I had a minder present. That stopped some years ago. So now I
create my own content. Its still boring, but thats the subject matter. I
get round the lossy issues with bandwidth and better codecs. Its a very
niche business but I make money. More in the talk at Uniforum.

> > Then you have to get it to the users,(The hard part). Customers would have
> > to run Tunnels to the ISP (as Telecom Jetstream/Jetstart/Dialup) network
>
>Running many tunnels defeats some of the purpose of multicast, since
>you're then back to multiple streams through the core of your network.
>Unless of course you can distribute the tunnel endpoints out to close to
>your customers, but then you may as well just use unicast and relay it.

Well the biggest part of the business is video on demand and that can
really only be unicast as getting viewers to agree on what they watch is
like agreeing on a TV Channel in a huge flat - hopeless. But I have gone
back to streaming live and did the LOTR premiere last year with 10,000
clients. Its a lot of fun and didn't really stress much other than a few
ISPs. The streaming business generally just uses unicast as getting network
wide multicast is impossible.

HOWEVER, Access Grids require multicast and will be running shortly (Cpus
arrive monday). But I will tunnel the multicast to try and have a quiet
life. Tunnels are the easy way out.

The Mbone tools haven't kept up with codec development and aren't great
quality. On the other hand divx/mp4 gives dvd quality at 800kbps which
isn't hard to deliver. I've even got 300kbyte files going onto cell phones
with very good feedback. Codecs certainly have got better.

So my input is that the market (ie the viewers) want VOD and that doesn't
need multicast.

rich
Richard Naylor
2003-06-27 04:17:36 UTC
Permalink
At 03:54 p.m. 27/06/2003 +1200, Ewen McNeill wrote:
>In message <***@pele.citylink.co.nz>,
>Richard Naylor writes:
> >>[Multicast]
> >Well the biggest part of the business is video on demand and that can
> >really only be unicast as getting viewers to agree on what they watch is
> >like agreeing on a TV Channel in a huge flat - hopeless.
>
>Even aside from the live situation you mention (eg, LOTR last year),
>general overseas experience with video-on-demand has shown that people
>really only want (to pay for) video-soon-after-demanded. Eg, for a 1-2
>hour thing, having to wait, say, 2-5 minutes for it to start isn't a big
>deal. Even waiting 1 minute for a 10 minute thing isn't _that big a deal.
>
>Which means that for popular stuff that is "on demand" it might not be
>enough to have one channel with it, where the wait time is, say, 15
>minutes for it to cycle around -- but it might be fine to have 10-20
>channels, suitably staggered, where the wait time was 1-2 minutes.
>(Add channels to reduce the wait time.)

ah - its that word "channel" that I don't see in the future. Such a dated
concept.

Instead, you're interested in Alastair Cook. Why should you wait til Monday
at 8:45 every week and then miss it because you were on the phone. Hey you
have 10 minutes now and would like to catch up with what he said last
Monday (when you were on the phone, remember). So why can't you click in
now and view it ?

Most TV progs come off a cart player at either Avalon or TVC. Saturn used
to stream them off Sun boxes at Petone. Why couldn't they just provide you
with a link to the files and you can watch when you want. TV news clips are
typically 1:30 and are finished thru the day as the day progresses. Why
should you have to wait until 6pm to see them in the sequence they
determine. If the clip is ready now ? Why wait thru 20 min of news you
don't want to see, so that you miss the one you do want. Turn the running
sheet into a web page and let the viewers click on the ones they
want.......kinda a unicast thing.

Multicast is great for synchronous events like TRADITIONAL tv. I just don't
see that continuing.

rich
Donald Neal
2003-06-27 00:41:15 UTC
Permalink
> From: Cameron Kerr [mailto:***@paradise.net.nz]
> Sent: Friday, 27 June 2003 12:23
> To: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> Subject: Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand

[...]
> I'm starting to think that IPv4 multicast will never come,
> instead, the
> first public offering of multicast capabilities to the general public
> will come with IPv6. Afterall, the corporate attitude is the same
> towards the two technologies is the same (No-one uses it, so we won't
> provide it). Is this a reasonable conclusion do you think?

My own opinion - and I must stress that it is just my opinion - is that this will be exactly Telecom's attitude. To change the answer you'd need to change the question. If you say "Look, to provide new service X which your customers will want, you need to enable IP multicasting", that's a different issue. But that would require the identification of service X.

- Donald Neal
Jamie Baddeley
2003-06-27 01:19:16 UTC
Permalink
"..I remember at uniforum it was mentioned that the hold up on multicast in NZ (read: Telecom ADSL and the like), was that it was hard to charge for.."

This the thing that I find hard to understand. Multicast to me seems like a cost reduction strategy rather than a revenue improvement one.....Does no one want to reduce costs? Or is the easier path to profit through increased revenue....

sigh.

jamie

>>> Nathan Ward <***@esphion.com> 06/27 12:45 PM >>>
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:22:49 +1200, Cameron Kerr
<***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> Judging by the responses I recieved, I'm led to believe that no ISPs
> currently support multicast.
>
> I'm forced then to consider the MBone. However there is very little in
> the way of instructions for connecting to the mbone (all the
> instructions say is to start mrouted). However, where does the other
> endpoint for the tunnel go? Is anyone here attached to the MBone? Are
> there any places you can connect to (preferably in NZ) for free?
>
> I'm starting to think that IPv4 multicast will never come, instead, the
> first public offering of multicast capabilities to the general public
> will come with IPv6. Afterall, the corporate attitude is the same
> towards the two technologies is the same (No-one uses it, so we won't
> provide it). Is this a reasonable conclusion do you think?
>
> Thanks for your answers.

DISCLAIMER: This email is what I recall, it may be completely incorrect

"The mbone is dead" - Greg Shepherd, Uniforum 2002.

The mbone was a test network. What is left of it now is more of an informal
thing.

Lots of people use multicast internally.

I remember at uniforum it was mentioned that the hold up on multicast in NZ
(read: Telecom ADSL and the like), was that it was hard to charge for.

--
Nathan Ward
Esphion Ltd.
Nathan Ward
2003-06-27 01:25:48 UTC
Permalink
> This the thing that I find hard to understand. Multicast to me seems like
> a cost reduction strategy rather than a revenue improvement one.....Does
> no one want to reduce costs? Or is the easier path to profit through
> increased revenue....

Sure, it reduces costs, but, who pays to get the content in? The ISP. How
do they pass that cost on to thier customers fairly?

IMO the only way to fairly do it is to watch your IGMP and see who is
listening to what, and devide the costs up nicely. However, the cost per
customer will differ per stream and also per minute.

Did I mention the fact that you now have to account per multicast group and
keep track of IGMP on all your routers...

And what about in NZ where we have one or 2 main ISPs, and many smaller
ISPs hanging off them. The cost that the smaller ISP gets charged by the
larger ISP changes all the time now too... as a smaller ISP, try factor
that into your billing system.

Nathan Ward
David Robb
2003-06-27 01:42:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Nathan Ward wrote:

> It was his opening line in his multicast talk right after a talk by David
> Robb about how cool the mbone was. IIRC.

Pretty much. Made a nice counterpoint. The first bit of my talk was about
how multicast works, the last bit had some references to the Mbone.

--David
David Robb
2003-06-27 01:48:11 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Craig Whitmore wrote:

> Orcon, Xtra and Attica, IHUG where talking/connecting via MBGP/msdp @ APE 6+
> months ago in various forms so we could broadcast our Multicast Streams etc
> to each other, but as there is/was no content it mostly went into
> nothingness.

There was a little bit of content (mostly multicast mp3 streams of radio
stations), but content is either the egg where the network to deliver it
on is the chicken.

> As no (as far as I know) Carriers can give a connection which include
> Multicast Access, a Tunnel is needed to someplace overseas to connect to (If
> anyone knows of a good place I can set up the tunnel please let me know, so
> I can set one up).

Overseas content proved to be largely boring, lossy, and not worth getting
back when I played with it at ihug. Now this might have changed since
then, but I suspect that locally generated content is still the way to go.

> Then you have to get it to the users,(The hard part). Customers would have
> to run Tunnels to the ISP (as Telecom Jetstream/Jetstart/Dialup) network

Running many tunnels defeats some of the purpose of multicast, since
you're then back to multiple streams through the core of your network.
Unless of course you can distribute the tunnel endpoints out to close to
your customers, but then you may as well just use unicast and relay it.

--David
Matthew Luckie
2003-06-27 03:00:17 UTC
Permalink
> Overseas content proved to be largely boring, lossy, and not worth getting
> back when I played with it at ihug. Now this might have changed since
> then, but I suspect that locally generated content is still the way to go.

http://www.ietf.org/meetings/agenda_57.html

there are some meetings that are multicast that i have some interest in
and would like to listen to, as would the average network geek. the
multicast sessions are denoted with a *
Michael Sutton
2003-06-27 02:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Over 500 clients of Xtra voluntarily registered and received Radio New
Zealand and BBC World Live as Multicast on Telecoms dial up service for 3
years from 1998.

I attended and observed when Telecom engineers enabled the same service via
adsl in Wellington as multicast sourced from my servers in Akl in 2000.

If i was in the Ministry of Health and needed to distribute 3,000 * 10m
bytes PDF document from my source server to all distribution points within
60 minutes (3GigaBytes) no New Zealand network can do it. The distribution
server and network would fail. If I used multicast and have a 256kbit
multicast injection source the upload to all 3000 GPs will be complete in
less than 10 minutes. The clients will still be billed for 3 gigabytes if
they were being changed for local traffic and the rest of the national
network would remain stable, especially for servers colocated with the
originating server.

If future spam blocking uses a signature system, multicast would enable this
information to be distributed to all enterprise mail servers instantly and
efficiently using multicast distribution...

If I was implementing Maori Television and Youth Radio I would use multicast
for distribution of the network transmission to reach 150 National
distribution points where I would convert the multicast program for
terrestrial transmission and in one step have positively changed the
operational budget as well as reduced complexity of distribution. Yes I
would still have to pay for each clients data charges...

If I ran Correspondence School I would use multicast... If I was the TAB I
would use it...
I could give you 20 project scenarios that unicast can not implement in the
real world. All unicast can do in every application is show the prototype
concept - scale-up can not occur without multicast...

This is really an Interconnect issue: customers should have network access
to inject on a case by case situation... It is not up to the networks to be
arbitrarily prohibiting this protocol... Please name another network
protocol that could make such a difference and which is disabled ...

Its like saying that the protocol extensions enabling mobile TXT messaging
should have been blocked until each application was identified.

I thought that Telecom, Telstra etc stopped "telling" customers what are
permissible applications... Telecom and Telstra etc are supposed to
implement enabling technologies which can be used by its customers who know
there own current and future applications... In my professional opinion if
the Boards of both these organisations understood the damage that this
decision does to their clients network application capabilities, all of
those executives involved would be gone.

New Zealand has never had a real Internet as far as I am concerned due to
this network management decision. Multicast is a broadcast service and
without it the network remains unicast spaghetti, like pieces of string with
empty cans of W* Baked Beans on each end...

If Probe does not require multicast as a mandatory network service then the
future of that service will be DOA... Due to public obfuscation of the
process I don't know what they thought they required anyway.

My final view on this is; turn it on and make the interconnect arrangements
necessary for peering at wix and ape before one or more customers takes this
to the Commissioner as an interconnect issue.

Michael Sutton
+64 4 4759235
www.awacs.co.nz


-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Neal [mailto:***@telecom.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:41
To: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand



My own opinion - and I must stress that it is just my opinion - is that this
will be exactly Telecom's attitude. To change the answer you'd need to
change the question. If you say "Look, to provide new service X which your
customers will want, you need to enable IP multicasting", that's a different
issue. But that would require the identification of service X.

- Donald Neal

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
"This communication, including any attachments, is confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read
it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not
copy or use any part of this communication or disclose
anything about it. Thank you."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Ewen McNeill
2003-06-27 03:54:45 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@pele.citylink.co.nz>, Richard Naylor writes:
>>[Multicast]
>Well the biggest part of the business is video on demand and that can
>really only be unicast as getting viewers to agree on what they watch is
>like agreeing on a TV Channel in a huge flat - hopeless.

Even aside from the live situation you mention (eg, LOTR last year),
general overseas experience with video-on-demand has shown that people
really only want (to pay for) video-soon-after-demanded. Eg, for a 1-2
hour thing, having to wait, say, 2-5 minutes for it to start isn't a big
deal. Even waiting 1 minute for a 10 minute thing isn't _that big a deal.

Which means that for popular stuff that is "on demand" it might not be
enough to have one channel with it, where the wait time is, say, 15
minutes for it to cycle around -- but it might be fine to have 10-20
channels, suitably staggered, where the wait time was 1-2 minutes.
(Add channels to reduce the wait time.)

Especially if there was some nice front end whereby people could find
out which channel would be showing their thing starting next, and tune
into that one.

And it's much easier to scale channels-starting-every-minute (say) than
it is to scale each-stream-is-unicast-with-its-own-start-point.
(Particularly if you don't both starting/continuing the channels if
there's nobody receiving it after a few minutes -- that requires some
feedback outside multicast, but wouldn't be hard to do with a suitable
client application and, say, UDP upstream responses every minute or so.)

>back to streaming live and did the LOTR premiere last year with 10,000
>clients. Its a lot of fun and didn't really stress much other than a few ISPs.

At least once some traction was made on the urgent call for more peering
from the source point to the main sink points. But multicast fully
deployed would definitely have helped a lot there.

Ewen
Donald Neal
2003-06-27 04:26:29 UTC
Permalink
> From: Michael Sutton [mailto:***@awacs.co.nz]
> Sent: Friday, 27 June 2003 14:55
> To: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> Cc: Donald Neal
> Subject: RE: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
>
>
> Over 500 clients of Xtra voluntarily registered and received
> Radio New Zealand and BBC World Live as Multicast on Telecoms
> dial up service for 3 years from 1998.
>
> I attended and observed when Telecom engineers enabled the
> same service via adsl in Wellington as multicast sourced from
> my servers in Akl in 2000.
>
> If [...]

What I'm looking for is someone who has _today_ content which they want to distribute where

a) the availability of IP multicasting could reasonably be expected to make some difference to customer experience/network load, and

b) the level of demand for this content can reasonably be expected to be such that either extra revenue for someone would come from making that content available OR its availability can reasonably be expected to increase the uptake of broadband service.

The first of these is actually a harder test than it looks, given that there are other ways of doing point to multipoint comunication than unvarnished IP unicast or multicast. (The classic way to allow download of big documents many times is with proxy caching, to take just one example.)

- Donald Neal

All opinions my own.
Joe Abley
2003-06-27 14:48:29 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, Jun 27, 2003, at 00:17 Canada/Eastern, Richard Naylor wrote:

> Instead, you're interested in Alastair Cook. Why should you wait til
> Monday at 8:45 every week and then miss it because you were on the
> phone.

You don't; you let the device attached to your satellite decoder know
that Alastair Cook is cool, and the next time it occurs to you to to
look you find that there's a small pile of relevant material sitting on
the disk waiting for you to watch it.

In my experience there's only a very tiny amount of content on TV
that's ever worth watching live (and most of the live stuff is endless
looped repetition of news you already saw hours before, although maybe
that's just a North American phenomenon :)

Applications like file distribution and cache synchronisation are much
more compelling drivers of multicast. A $30 dish glued to the roof has
always seemed to me like a more sensible way of distributing video than
trying to shoe-horn it into IP networks.

> Multicast is great for synchronous events like TRADITIONAL tv. I just
> don't see that continuing.

Broadcast is great for content delivery, and that's what satellites do
(with a single last-mile network for millions of subscribers). The
"on-demand" bit can be pushed to the edge.


Joe
Joe Abley
2003-06-27 14:37:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, Jun 26, 2003, at 18:02 Canada/Eastern, Donald Neal wrote:

>
>> From: Simon Lyall [mailto:***@ihug.co.nz]
>> Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2003 17:46
>> To: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
>> Subject: Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Craig Whitmore wrote:
>>> But wihtout having a killer ap or connections which can use
>>> them (like Telecom looking into enabling then DialIP/IPNET/Jetstream
>>> Network) 99% of the peopel conencted on these mediums won't
>> see anything)
>>
>> I'm sure there would be a few people that would jump through
>> the hoops to
>> get a non-commercial broadcast arrangement with APRA ( I
>> think one person
>> on this list has something along these lines) if they could multicast
>> their musical tastes to DSL people.
>
> Is anyone able to point me at some such people?

3557 would be happy to do MBGP peering with 4648 across the PAIX in
Palo Alto.


Joe
Ewen McNeill
2003-06-28 01:05:50 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@pele.citylink.co.nz>, Richard Nayl
or writes:
>At 03:54 p.m. 27/06/2003 +1200, Ewen McNeill wrote:
>>In message <***@pele.citylink.co.nz>,
>>Richard Naylor writes:
>> >>[Multicast]
>> >Well the biggest part of the business is video on demand and that can
>> >really only be unicast as getting viewers to agree on what they watch is
>> >like agreeing on a TV Channel in a huge flat - hopeless.
>>
>>[... "on demand" doesn't necessarily mean "instantly" ...]
>>Which means that for popular stuff that is "on demand" it might not be
>>enough to have one channel with it, where the wait time is, say, 15
>>minutes for it to cycle around -- but it might be fine to have 10-20
>>channels, suitably staggered, where the wait time was 1-2 minutes.
>
>ah - its that word "channel" that I don't see in the future. Such a dated
>concept.

Ah. Channels are double-plus-ungood. Call it a stream if it makes you
feel happier. Or VDC or whatever.

>Instead, you're interested in Alastair Cook. Why should you wait til Monday
>at 8:45 every week and then miss it because you were on the phone.

I don't recall suggesting that you should.

>Hey you have 10 minutes now and would like to catch up with what he said last
>Monday (when you were on the phone, remember). So why can't you click in
>now and view it ?

Your argument seems to be "viewers must be able to view it __NOW__(tm)"
and hence we must use unicast for everything in order that everyone can
have their whim satisifed at an instants notice (and provide all the
bandwidth from source to (multiple) sink(s) to make this possible).

My argument is that there's a fair chunk of evidence that says that
people would be willing to wait 1, 2, 5, 10, 30, or even 60 seconds for
something to start (maybe even longer if it's a sizeable time investment
to watch it all and the waiting time can be used productively -- eg,
getting that beer out of the fridge before settling down to watch the
game), especially given a proper cost/benefit tradeoff ("would you pay
5 times as much to be able to have it start within half a second instead
of within 5 seconds"?).

And that by adding that relaxing condition it's both quite feasible, and
quite benefical, to use multicast at least for the more popular things,
especially where the multicast VDCs is set up "on demand" with just a
short "setup time" to pull in other potential viewers.

Think of it as the difference between everyone just crossing the road
when they feel like it, and traffic lights (or at very least waiting for
the same gap in the traffic).

The big reason that it's beneficial in the popular-to-(re)view situation
is that there're more people wanting to view something than there are
5-second, 10-second, 30-second, 60-second, whatever start periods.
So you can achieve an N:M reduction in the number of VDC you need
originating from the source, for only the price of a bit of management
infrastructure (request-a-start-soon), and a slightly slip from the "I
wanna watch it now! Now! Now! Mommy, make it go!" instant satisfaction.

>Multicast is great for synchronous events like TRADITIONAL tv. I just don't
>see that continuing.

It's good for things other than traditional TV too. Especially where
there's (significantly) more than one person wanting to watch something
at the "same" time. Which is a surprisingly common case for "current"
events. (Speech replays, sports replays, recent movie releases, etc.)

Oh, and I quite agree with Joe's comment that caching at the edge can
achieve quite remarkable things in turning "watch now or miss it" into
"watch when you feel like it". (And even better, if those with suitable
broadcast channels would actually get a clue and use the "down" time
to spool out things people might want to watch during the week (eg,
"this week's hot new movies"). But "video recorders are bad, we must
do everything to defeat the use of video recorders". Furrfu.)

Ewen
Craig Whitmore
2003-06-28 11:53:50 UTC
Permalink
I have taken all my notes I had when setting up multicast connections @ APE
ages ago and put on http://www.mbone.net.nz
A small howto on Multicast in NZ. (At APE at least at the moment).
Its very incomplete and may not give you multicast and even crash your
router but its a small start for some people.
With this setup (or something like it) I could see some multicast stuff ages
ago.

If you have any additions/notes/things to add/remove please let me know.

Thanks
Craig
Cameron Kerr
2003-06-29 12:11:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 11:53:50PM +1200, Craig Whitmore wrote:

> A small howto on Multicast in NZ. (At APE at least at the moment).

So, just how "dead" _is_ the mbone, anyway? How does NZ's multicast
(in)capabilies compare with other developed nations (including the likes
of South Korea and Vietnam)

And while on the topic of global virtual networks, I take it the 6bone
is still alive and kicking?

> If you have any additions/notes/things to add/remove please let me know.

You might like to throw in the link to the "IPv6 Multicast Best Current
Practice" draft RFC (June 2003 - December 2003)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-mcast-bcp-01.txt

This document doesn't mention anything about PIM-2 though, just PIM
Sparse Mode, MSDP, and MBGP. It also doesn't mention anything about
address allocation (MALLOC)

It also mentions nothing about accounting and billing methodologies, nor
DNS issues (if any).

BTW. I looked up about Project PROBE the other day, and some information
from the Ministry of Education wrt ICT. I found no mention whatsoever
about multicast (and they were talking about video conferencing a lot).
Mind you, there was no technical information I could find about PROBE,
except to find that Halfmoon Bay in Stewart Island can get Jetstream
now.

--
Cameron Kerr
***@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
Empowered by Perl!
Joe Abley
2003-06-29 21:14:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday 29 June 2003, at 08:11, Cameron Kerr wrote:

> And while on the topic of global virtual networks, I take it the 6bone
> is still alive and kicking?

The 6bone was declared dead at the v6ops meeting at the recent IETF
meeting in San Francisco, I believe (I wasn't actually in that
meeting). Apparently production, non-pTLA-numbered v6 networks are now
common enough that prolonging the use of 3ffe:: is no longer considered
important.

Last time I asked there weren't any ISPs on the APE or the WIX who were
ready/interested in doing native v6 peering.


Joe
Matthew Luckie
2003-06-29 21:28:14 UTC
Permalink
> The 6bone was declared dead at the v6ops meeting at the recent IETF
> meeting in San Francisco, I believe (I wasn't actually in that
> meeting). Apparently production, non-pTLA-numbered v6 networks are now
> common enough that prolonging the use of 3ffe:: is no longer considered
> important.

basically there was agreement (hmmmmm) that there would be no more pTLAs
allocated past January 1, 2004 (i honestly thought they chose April 4,
2004 for that date but this is beside the point) and for all of 3ffe::
space to be reclaimed at June 6, 2006 - at which point the 6bone would
well and truly be dead.

i've seen requests for 3ffe:: space granted on the 6bone mailing list
since the San Francisco IETF

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fink-6bone-phaseout-04.txt
http://www.6bone.net/ngtrans/IETF-56-SanFrancisco/6bone-phaseout.pdf
Nevil Brownlee
2003-06-29 21:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Hi Joe:

> Last time I asked there weren't any ISPs on the APE or the WIX who were
> ready/interested in doing native v6 peering.

NGI-NZ has a strong interest in promoting native IPv6. Once the NGI
network network is up and running, i.e. providing reliable IPv4 connectivity,
we'll be looking to do the same for IPv6.

BTW, last year's report on NGI proposed a startup date well before the
end of 2003, and all those involved in the NGI discussions have been
working hard to make that happen.

Cheers, Nevil (wearing NGI-NZ Technical WG chair hat)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevil Brownlee Director, Technology Development
Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941 ITSS, The University of Auckland
FAX: +64 9 373 7021 Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through University of Auckland
http://www.auckland.ac.nz/
Peter Macaulay
2003-06-28 20:28:11 UTC
Permalink
The benefit of multicast is primarily in the combination of richnes and
reach (marketing terms) in a limited bandwidth network, Richness is
about the quality of the material as percevied by the recipient. Reach
is is how broad you can spread that material. Multicast allows flows of
highly rich material to be received by those wanting it (unlimited
reach, assuming everyone has internet access), while minimising network
overhead. If bandwidth is somewhat unlimited (and it bloody well
should be!) we do not need multicast. I think we should press for
providers to turn it on, especially since they are the ones choking the
pipes.

Craig Whitmore wrote:

>I have taken all my notes I had when setting up multicast connections @ APE
>ages ago and put on http://www.mbone.net.nz
>A small howto on Multicast in NZ. (At APE at least at the moment).
>Its very incomplete and may not give you multicast and even crash your
>router but its a small start for some people.
>With this setup (or something like it) I could see some multicast stuff ages
>ago.
>
>If you have any additions/notes/things to add/remove please let me know.
>
>Thanks
>Craig
>
>_______________________________________________
>Nznog mailing list
>***@list.waikato.ac.nz
>http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
>

--
Peter Macaulay
Executive Director
InternetNZ
Direct +64 4 495 2113
Hamish MacEwan
2003-07-08 09:26:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 13:05 +1200, Ewen McNeill wrote:

> In message <***@pele.citylink.co.nz>,
> Richard Naylor writes:
> >ah - its that word "channel" that I don't see in the future. Such a
> >dated concept.
>
> Ah. Channels are double-plus-ungood. Call it a stream if it makes
> you feel happier. Or VDC or whatever.

I think Rich's point is broader than "channels," it goes to the notion
of "broadcast," which, while like most things is not going to go away
anytime soon, but the option of obtaining material from P2P or other
sources (Tivo as so aptly observed by Joe) and assembling your own
experience is becoming more feasible, NB. those "mix CDs" that upset the
same distribution monopolies who take exception to video recorders.

As per usual there will be those (including me) who wish to be spoon-fed
the mass-market LCD, and good for them, what appears to be disliked by a
percentage of any audience/market is the lack of any choice. Its no
longer held that the centre/operator knows best for us all.

This is what makes me leery of attempts to make the Internet a better
broadcast medium than it already isn't. It may make non-broadcast use
more difficult. Unintended consequences, increased core complexity, et
al.

> Your argument seems to be "viewers must be able to view it __NOW__(tm)"

I don't recall Rich writing anything quite so exclusionary, I read it as
saying this could be a better, non-exclusive, option. Assuming you mean
MUST in the RFC 2119 sense of the word.

> My argument is that there's a fair chunk of evidence that says that
> people would be willing to wait 1, 2, 5, 10, 30, or even 60 seconds
> for something to start

Most of the WWW supports that conclusion, LOL.

> (maybe even longer if it's a sizeable time investment to watch it all
> and the waiting time can be used productively

Yes, like video rental already provides, without the drive there and
back, and PPV on Sky Digital. No, new things are almost always about
adding options, not about removing them. Though that said, some options
become so niche that they vanish.

> Think of it as the difference between everyone just crossing the road
> when they feel like it, and traffic lights (or at very least waiting
> for the same gap in the traffic).

I think its more about about buses on a scheduled route rather than
everyone owning a car going where and when they want, but your
analogising may vary.

In my analogy, people rather prefer the private vehicle (and bus over
train (10 to 1) in Wellington). They can possibly afford this preference
as the vehicle/road (as opposed to the packet/bearer) network has
matured to the point where operators don't make any money at all
(excepting London of course <grin>), though they are trying to get into
that mode via the pernicious "Public/Private Partnership" and
"congestion charging."

> >Multicast is great for synchronous events like TRADITIONAL tv. I just
> >don't see that continuing.
>
> It's good for things other than traditional TV too. Especially where
> there's (significantly) more than one person wanting to watch
> something at the "same" time. Which is a surprisingly common case for
> "current" events. (Speech replays, sports replays, recent movie
> releases, etc.)

I think those are "synchronous events" or what in TV is called "live"
and there certainly is interest.

> But "video recorders are bad, we must do everything to defeat the use
> of video recorders". Furrfu.)

The Boston Strangler of the TV Industry huh? (I didn't know so I'll
explain, "furrfu" is rot13 "sheesh").

Service implementation on the edge is double-plus-good. That can happen
without this discussion or the attendant attempts at co-ordination and
convincing the operators they can make money this way. Customer
owned/created services generally serve the customer best.

> Ewen

Hamish.

PS. Road congestion, like unicast broadcast congestion, seems to arise
from the continued belief that we all have to use the road at the same
times (morning and night, Monday-Friday) in the same way we all have to
watch/hear the news as it is broadcast or rolls off the presses. It
doesn't really have to be that homogeneous any more, and putting a cost
on that, might drive recognition of this fact. We appear to have noticed
you don't need to own the rails to run services over them...

--
You will soon break the bow if you keep it always stretched.
-- Phaedrus
Lin Nah
2003-06-30 11:20:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Michael Sutton wrote:
> Over 500 clients of Xtra voluntarily registered and received Radio New
> Zealand and BBC World Live as Multicast on Telecoms dial up service for 3
> years from 1998.
Radio NZ used to stream their shows from their website. ie Morning
report, Kim Hill's (at the time) 9 - noon etc. When they stopped doing
it, I (or someone I know) inquired why.
Cameron Kerr
2003-06-30 12:34:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 11:20:32PM +1200, Lin Nah wrote:

> Some of the target audience in the groups above tend to live in
> rural areas and it is a challenge for them to get a 56k dialup
> connection going (without worrying about line quality, electric
> fences etc) let alone worry about high speed internet. Hence the
> need for Project Probe.

That raises an interesting question.

If a primary problem with POTS is with electric fences creating a large
amount of interference, how on earth is ADSL going to fare??? Surely its
higher frequencies would be even more messed up.

Or would they use wireless for people in that position?

--
Cameron Kerr
***@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
Empowered by Perl!
Joe Abley
2003-06-30 17:57:37 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, Jun 30, 2003, at 07:20 Canada/Eastern, Lin Nah wrote:

> I am hoping that this year's uniforum papers will be made available
> online. Even if not the whole thing, the papers/presentations of
> interest to NZNOG type people. After all if NANOG can' do it, why
> can't NZNOG?

The presenters' deadline to submit presentation material is 4 July. I
presumed this was so that there was time to get the material on a web
page ready for the conference.


Joe
Frank March
2003-06-30 23:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Electric fences are a problem with POTS when they are poorly designed and
maintained.

The major problem with ADSL in rural areas is the distance from the nearest
enabled exchange - only a relatively small number of rural people are within
the 5-7 km distance that ADSL will reach.

It is likely that wireless technologies will be necessary to reach anyone
more than this distance for an exchange and for some satellite will be the
only practical solution. According to Fonterra, there could be as many as
5,000 farms (probably not dairy farms) in this category.

---
Frank March
Senior Specialist Adviser, IT Policy Group
(and member of the PROBE project team)
Ministry of Economic Development, PO Box 1473, Wellington, New Zealand
Phone (+64 4) 474 2908; Fax (+64 4) 474 2659; Mobile (+64) 21 042 9205


-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Kerr [mailto:***@paradise.net.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 1 July 2003 00:35
To: ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
Subject: Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand


On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 11:20:32PM +1200, Lin Nah wrote:

> Some of the target audience in the groups above tend to live in
> rural areas and it is a challenge for them to get a 56k dialup
> connection going (without worrying about line quality, electric
> fences etc) let alone worry about high speed internet. Hence the
> need for Project Probe.

That raises an interesting question.

If a primary problem with POTS is with electric fences creating a large
amount of interference, how on earth is ADSL going to fare??? Surely its
higher frequencies would be even more messed up.

Or would they use wireless for people in that position?
_______________________________________________
Nznog mailing list
***@list.waikato.ac.nz
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

http://www.govt.nz - connecting you to New Zealand central & local government services

Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
Ewen McNeill
2003-07-09 01:14:07 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@pele.citylink.co.nz>, Richard Nayl
or writes:
>Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-multicast. I agree its the most efficient
>way of distributing a synchronous event. Its just I don't see a lot of
>synchronous events......

Which brings me back to where I started -- with a bit of relaxation
of the "I must see it NOW" requirement (in the order of a few
seconds/minutes) and good client software/hardware, you can turn a bunch
of not-quite-synchronous viewings into synchronous events. And thus
snatch a multicast win, out of the jaws of a watch-now unicast defeat.

This is both with "live" things -- which I agree aren't that common --
and also "near release time" viewings of things which aren't live (where
you can expect that something which is recently released, and popular,
is most likely to be wanted nearer the release time than later, in some
sort of half-bell-curve type model).

>Its just as the size of "live" viewer base gets smaller, and bandwidth
>higher, multicasting doesn't seem worth the effort.

Well I've seen approximately three orders of magnitude (powers of 10)
drop in the cost of bandwidth/traffic over the last 10 years or so, and
it's still at least two to three orders of magnitude away from the point
where I'd be willing to say the "cost" of getting multicasting going
isn't worth the value of the saved bandwidth.

Generally like RAM space, harddrive space, etc, the uses will expand to
fill all the available bandwidth, so using it inefficiently isn't
exactly desireable.

>If I stream an event for say 10 viewers, why should the rest of the
>NZ net get it sent to them without asking for it.

Umm, that's not how multicasting works (indeed it's the key difference
between multicasting and broadcasting). But I think you know that
already.

Ewen
Richard Naylor
2003-07-09 01:41:00 UTC
Permalink
At 01:14 p.m. 9/07/2003 +1200, Ewen McNeill wrote:
>Umm, that's not how multicasting works (indeed it's the key difference
>between multicasting and broadcasting). But I think you know that
>already.

sorry - forgot NZ isn't one flat L2 network - yet ;-)
I have a wee way to go....

rich
Cameron Kerr
2003-07-09 02:33:42 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:41:00PM +1200, Richard Naylor wrote:
> At 01:14 p.m. 9/07/2003 +1200, Ewen McNeill wrote:
> >Umm, that's not how multicasting works (indeed it's the key difference
> >between multicasting and broadcasting). But I think you know that
> >already.
>
> sorry - forgot NZ isn't one flat L2 network - yet ;-)

Even then, a well designed large L2 network (ie. one with IGMP snooping,
or equivalent) won't flood multicast data.

--
Cameron Kerr
***@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
Empowered by Perl!
Craig Whitmore
2003-07-09 02:54:34 UTC
Permalink
I see everyone talking about it.. now who is going to "Act" and actually
start enabling their network. Its the chicken and egg. No network so no
content, No content so why set up the network?

So as someone said once "Just do it". If anyone has any input in
www.mbone.net.nz please let me know. (like how to get Dialin Multicast
working on USR/3Com Gear)

My 5c
Craig Whitmore



----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Naylor" <***@citylink.co.nz>
To: "Ewen McNeill" <***@naos.co.nz>
Cc: <***@list.waikato.ac.nz>;
<***@.SYNTAX-ERROR.>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [nznog] Multicast status in New Zealand


> At 01:14 p.m. 9/07/2003 +1200, Ewen McNeill wrote:
> >Umm, that's not how multicasting works (indeed it's the key difference
> >between multicasting and broadcasting). But I think you know that
> >already.
>
> sorry - forgot NZ isn't one flat L2 network - yet ;-)
> I have a wee way to go....
>
> rich
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nznog mailing list
> ***@list.waikato.ac.nz
> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
Loading...