RE: Just my ten pence..

[d2@embone.net]

On Tue, 20 February 2001, "Ashok Rao" wrote:

Thanks for the reply Ashok..

While I agree that pervasive IPM isn't yet available, I would consider that enabling technology already in the marketplace would be cheaper (for the live scenareo) than overlaying new tech.

I also must highlight that there is plenty of opportunity for NVOD type applications using IPM offering both the "solution for delivery of on-demand streams or for static (or dynamically generated ) web content due to the personalized nature of the interaction," while still offerring all the bandwidth benefits of IPM...

While one has to wait for Unicast streams to prebuffer anyway, why not wait a few seconds for the next IPM NVOD stream to begin. This would utilise an exisiting technology to produce the same effect as seems to be being re-invented by CDNs..

Dom




> In-Reply-To: <NEBBJJNJODIBAAFMDBGCMEPACKAA.cpu@dial.pipex.com>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> To: <d2@embone.net>
> Delivered-To: embone.net%d2@embone.net
> Cc: <cdn@ops.ietf.org>
> Received: from ashok (172-31-25-36.nat.cidera.com [172.31.25.36])
> by nimbus.skycache.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f1KIFMt29362;
> Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:15:23 -0500 (EST)
> from nimbus.skycache.com (207.239.230.67)
> 	by smtp.c001.snv.cp.net (209.228.32.108) with SMTP; 20 Feb 2001 10:15:24 -0800
> from ashok (172-31-25-36.nat.cidera.com [172.31.25.36])
> 	by nimbus.skycache.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f1KIFMt29362;
> 	Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:15:23 -0500 (EST)
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Length: 1310
> X-Received: 20 Feb 2001 18:15:24 GMT
> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
> Subject: RE: Just my ten pence..
> Importance: Normal
> From: "Ashok Rao" <rao@cidera.com>
> X-Msmail-Priority: Normal
> Return-Path: <rao@cidera.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:15:22 -0500
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
> Message-Id: <003201c09b69$18694f40$24191fac@cidera.com>
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org 
> > [mailto:owner-cdn@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> > D2
> > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 3:03 PM
> > To: Cdn
> > Subject: Just my ten pence..
> > 
> > 
> > In fact IP Multicast would seem pretty complete as a solution 
> > for Content
> > Delivery Network already, which leaves me wondering why the ISPs and
> > Backbone Providers don't pull their finger out and deploy 
> > technology that
> > works across the Internet rather than re-invent technology 
> > which many top
> > academics have been designing successfully for years.
> > 
> > Is it that the CDNs would rather pay for immense bandwidth 
> > and then pay more
> > for Unicast Patches all over the place. Does this create a 
> > barrier to entry
> > for smaller competing CPs with more compelling content?
> 
> IP Multicast is great for live streams - a major stumbling point
> is that the networks traversed from source to destination need to
> be multicast enabled and participate in the exchange of multicast
> traffic. However, multicast is not the solution for delivery of
> on-demand streams or for static (or dynamically generated ) web
> content due to the personalized nature of the interaction. 
> 
> Ashok Rao
> VP, Technology
> Cidera, Inc.
> The Internet Broadcast Backbone
> Tel: 301-598-0500, x2377
> Fax: 301-598-0837
> www.cidera.com