Difference between revisions of "Multicast"
m |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Multicast is similar to [[broadcast]] where there is one sender and multiple receivers. The difference is that with multicast the receiver can opt-in to a specific multicast group. [[Router|Routers]] and [[switch|switches]] need multicast support in order to effectively switch multicast content to a station that opted in per [[IGMP]] packets. Multicast support on the Internet has always lagged behind somewhat probably due to the fact that the costs of a multicaster are quite low to reach lots of receivers as compared to a broadcaster serving multiple [[unicast]] streams. The people in power are just terrified that someone else has a message better than them. This is exactly the same reason that the upload speed of home DSL is capped at a small percentage of the download speed. Don't expect to see global or even continent wide multicast support anytime soon. | Multicast is similar to [[broadcast]] where there is one sender and multiple receivers. The difference is that with multicast the receiver can opt-in to a specific multicast group. [[Router|Routers]] and [[switch|switches]] need multicast support in order to effectively switch multicast content to a station that opted in per [[IGMP]] packets. Multicast support on the Internet has always lagged behind somewhat probably due to the fact that the costs of a multicaster are quite low to reach lots of receivers as compared to a broadcaster serving multiple [[unicast]] streams. The people in power are just terrified that someone else has a message better than them. This is exactly the same reason that the upload speed of home DSL is capped at a small percentage of the download speed. Don't expect to see global or even continent wide multicast support anytime soon. | ||
| − | Multicast is stateless, meaning you cannot use [[TCP]] for multicasting. This sucks because you lose the reliability and content can get lost. There is protocols that use [[unicast]] to back up lost multicast packets. Other protocols use parity inside the packets sent so that a lost packet can be reconstructed after receiving other packets. Either way whether you use unicast or parity the method for repairing lost multicast packets is costly. | + | Multicast is stateless, meaning you cannot use [[TCP]] for multicasting. This sucks because you lose the reliability and content can get lost. There is protocols that use [[unicast]] to back up lost multicast packets. Other protocols use [[parity]] inside the packets sent so that a lost packet can be reconstructed after receiving other packets. Either way whether you use unicast or parity the method for repairing lost multicast packets is costly. |
Revision as of 06:21, 4 December 2005
Multicast is similar to broadcast where there is one sender and multiple receivers. The difference is that with multicast the receiver can opt-in to a specific multicast group. Routers and switches need multicast support in order to effectively switch multicast content to a station that opted in per IGMP packets. Multicast support on the Internet has always lagged behind somewhat probably due to the fact that the costs of a multicaster are quite low to reach lots of receivers as compared to a broadcaster serving multiple unicast streams. The people in power are just terrified that someone else has a message better than them. This is exactly the same reason that the upload speed of home DSL is capped at a small percentage of the download speed. Don't expect to see global or even continent wide multicast support anytime soon.
Multicast is stateless, meaning you cannot use TCP for multicasting. This sucks because you lose the reliability and content can get lost. There is protocols that use unicast to back up lost multicast packets. Other protocols use parity inside the packets sent so that a lost packet can be reconstructed after receiving other packets. Either way whether you use unicast or parity the method for repairing lost multicast packets is costly.
