From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 3 12:52:58 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A81E1065699 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:52:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lukasz@bromirski.net) Received: from r2d2.bromirski.net (r2d2.bromirski.net [217.153.57.194]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 203968FC51 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:52:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lukasz@bromirski.net) Received: by r2d2.bromirski.net (Postfix, from userid 1008) id 128F2108A78; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:52:57 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on r2d2.bromirski.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.2.4 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (r2d2.bromirski.net [217.153.57.194]) by r2d2.bromirski.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E45108993; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 13:52:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47CBF503.9060208@bromirski.net> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:54:27 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=A3ukasz_Bromirski?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Willem Jan Withagen References: <497111.42659.qm@web63905.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <20080301225727.GA85851@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <47CAADB8.9000202@digiware.nl> <47CC304F.6040006@bromirski.net> <47CBF16C.6020704@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <47CBF16C.6020704@digiware.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Barney Cordoba , Ingo Flaschberger , net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FBSD 1GBit router? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:52:58 -0000 Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > Łukasz Bromirski wrote: >> Willem Jan Withagen wrote: >> >>> I'm looking for a stream exploder.:) >>> 1 2Mbit stream in, and as many as possible out. >>> And 7*1Gb = 14Gbit, so I'd like to be pushing 7000 streams. >>> (One advantage is that they will be UDP streams, so there is >>> a little less bookkeeping in the protocol stack ) >> >> Wouldn't it be a case for use of multicast vs unicast? Hardware >> is always better anyway, so why not invest in some switch that >> can do unicast/multicast in hardware? > > Usefull suggestion, only this is going to be in an overlay cloud where > we do not have control over all the endpoint networks. let alone that we > can get them to use multicast. And even those that use multicast in their > last-mule equipment, don't always have correct setups. > > My experience is that Multicast in nice in theory and experiment, but when > push comes to shove it does not completely deliver. I don't know exact requirements and application used, but given IP TV deployments relying heavily on multicast, and all other "VoD" technologies also using multicast...I find Your comments disturbing :) However, if you don't control the network over which it will be transported, you need to replicate each stream...and so either you'll find bandwidth to do it (or pay for it) or be forced to switch to other design. -- "Don't expect me to cry for all the | Łukasz Bromirski reasons you had to die" -- Kurt Cobain | http://lukasz.bromirski.net