North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion
- From: Petri Helenius
- Date: Fri Aug 30 04:30:35 2002
> you can go hybrid, like
> - client connects to server for game playing info (like location on the
> map, inventory and stuff)
> - client will talk with each other directly for video/voice-chat
> even with this, server load/traffic will be decreased.
This is exactly what I also had in mind. This would get 1:10 benefit
in bandwidth and actually enable this kind of activity.
> i still don't understand why you say multicast is mandatory.
Most consumer connetions (where this is feasible anyway) are asymmetric,
having 256k-1.5Mbps downstream and 128k-512k upstream. A decent video stream
represents 128k to 384k of bandwidth. If you have a small number, say eight
players in a game, you'll end up sending the stream seven times unless
you do multicast. You probably don't have the upstream bandwidth to accommodate
that unless you're lucky to sit on top of a new housing development with
fiber in the basement.
The next logical step to this discussion is what happens to multicast routing
when one million gamers setup half a million *,G and a few million S,G pairs.
Add a zero if it makes the excersise more interesting. Keep in mind that
one million gamers playing is less than what the network currently has at any given