Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Broadening the IPv6 discussion

  • From: Petri Helenius
  • Date: Fri Aug 30 04:30:35 2002

itojun@iijlab.net wrote:
> 
>         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
moment.

Pete




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.