Regarding point 1, yes we do it at this way. I can offer the service, for free, up to 8Mbits but only in IPv6. We have very small IPv4 bandwidth (2 Mbits), but I'm sure we can coordinate with some universities or NRENs to support this w/o any cost. Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin C. Almeroth" <almeroth@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:52 AM Subject: Re: Multicast access > > >>As has been pointed out, this is a little more complicated than just > >>the choice of client, in particular multicast is not widely available > >>to the "average" Internet user. > >> > >>But I still find it ironic that I can watch a webcast from an ICANN > >>meeting but I am unable to do the same for an IETF meeting (until after > >>the fact). That is but one example. > > Pretty standard response every time this comes up: > > 0. Arguing the merits of multicast is really a separate issue, but > some facts: (1) the MBone is long dead, (2) multicast is a highly > successive (revenue generating) service in a suprising number of > enterprises, (3) multicast is certainly NOT ubiquitous in the > wide-area infrastructure, but people really ought to understand its > deployment by looking at measured statistics, and (4) before bashing > "the MBone", make sure you understand the huge challenge that was > undertaken (compare to moving the entire Internet to IPv6) and > understand that there are a lot of non-technical challenges that > were not properly envisioned. > > 1. As Joel pointed out, the single reason for using multicast is > scalability. We simply don't have enough bandwidth to support X > (where X > 5-10) simultaneous streams of the same content from the hotel. > A very fine idea is to have an exploder or some sort of server available > off-site. We send one stream to them and it replicates. Volunteers? > > 2. The whole multicast effort is run on a shoe-string budget. Until > now, and maybe even still now, there seems very little willingness by > remote users to pay for even a hypothetically perfpect service. What > everyone needs to realize is that of what is currently done, almost > zero $$$ of IETF registration money goes to pay for it. As Harald > mentioned, it is time donated by UofO (and others), it is a grant from > Cisco, and it is money from ISOC. > > 3. Just some back of the envelope numbers: you want every session > encoded (even single camera) and available by unicast, I would estimate > this to cost about $15K per meeting plus equipment (assuming someone > is willing to do replicated service for free). Given a replacement > time for the equipment of three years (reasonable, especially since > a lot of the equipment doesn't travel well) and an esimated cost > of about $50K, that means, per meeting we are talking about $20K. > > $100 per remote attendee = 200 attendees > $500 per remote attendee = 40 attendees > > A bit tough to support but possibly doable. > > --------------------- > > And if you are STILL reading... as Harald sent in an email, we are > approaching the end of the grant period, so lots of opportunity for > recommendations. > > -Kevin > ********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.