Download to read offline
Uploaded byMark Cuban
Ipmi
The document discusses multicast technology and strategies used by broadcast.com for efficient routing and content distribution across networks. It highlights the importance of peering protocols such as mbgp/msdp and pim for scalability, as well as the challenges posed by vendor support and application limits. Future prospects in 1999 include wider enterprise deployment, improved quality of service, and the need for standardized tools to enhance interoperability.
More Related Content
Ipmi
- 1. broadcast.com multicast broadcast.com Multicast Affiliates Sprint broadcast.com MBGP/MSDP/PIM Peering to MBone and UUCast UUNet UUCast Phase I/II UUNet MBone AT&T Huges DirecPC Verio CyberRamp MindSpring Bell Atlantic IDT American Digital Network Lightspeed Net Nova Internet IIJ - Japan Inlink Comm. ZipLink Direct Peering MBGP/MSDP/PIM Peering to MBone Peering: Multihomed MBone connections. UUNet UUCast Phase I and Phase II Sprint Huges Network broadcast.com multicast affiliates
- 2. broadcast.com multicast Ethernet Ethernet Public Internet Dialup Ports Dialup Ports Multicast Enabled Routers Internet Gateways broadcast.com Internet Gateway broadcast.com Core Multicast Router GRE Tunnel --> Tunnels: Allow multicast content to pass over the non native multicast Internet. Peering: MBGP/MSDP/PIM allow for efficient, scaleable interdomain routing and multicast content distribution.
- 3. broadcast.com multicast •Pitfalls – Lack of support by equipment vendors. Large scale multicast requires interoperation and standardization – QOS. Larger scale deployment is coming. – Application limits in scaleable multicast and management
- 4. broadcast.com multicast Whywe do like we do: MBGP with MSDP and PIM are much more scaleable than the protocols of old. They offer more efficient routing between larger networks. Peering with smaller ISP’s does not have the demand of the lager networks. Networks are smaller and content distribution is more easily controlled. Tunnels work, but direct peering is obviously a better choice. The Internet is not perfect and as QOS becomes more prevalent it will become a necessity.
- 5. broadcast.com multicast •What's next in 1999? – Lager Scale enterprise deployment of multicast – QOS improvements in both management and application. – A faster last mile. Creating more demand for high quality broadband content. – More standards based tools and protocols allowing for true interoperability.
- 6. broadcast.com multicast •What's next in 1999? – Lager Scale enterprise deployment of multicast – QOS improvements in both management and application. – A faster last mile. Creating more demand for high quality broadband content. – More standards based tools and protocols allowing for true interoperability.