Re: [saag] Ten years after Snowden (2013 - 2023), is IETF keeping its promises?

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

Kyle Rose wrote:

> Unicast delivery is very mature in every way: not just reliable 
> transport, but operations, monitoring, congestion control, 
> authentication, and confidentiality.

Congestion control for multicast is just impossible (what if,
a new user with a 64Kbps link joins a group when 1M users
are enjoying to receive 1Mbps traffic). As such, speed must
be determined by sender side, which can not be TCP friendly.

So, multicast in WAN can be practical only with QoS guarantee
with usage based charging.

In an ISP, it is not so difficult to manually prioritize some
multicast traffic with advance agreements between the ISP and
multicast senders.

> it's the rest of the ecosystem that requires a large lift to
> get multicast delivery to the point where it is viable for
> businesses whose users have high baseline quality expectations.

With best effort, flat rated Internet, end users are not
motivated to be multicast capable and content providers
just use parallel unicast servers.

With QoS guaranteed, usage based charging Internet, paid charge
can be reduced by multicast, which will be the economic incentive
to deploy multicast.

A problem is that best effort speed of the Internet today is
fast enough for most purposes. But, 8K video streaming can
be a candidate.

 > In
 > most cases, technologies for doing those things don't exist except on
 > paper, and even then have not been battle-tested by operators for 40
 > years.

While I designed and implemented fully automated QoS/multicast
signaling protocol with BW and charge based QoS routing, as a
starter, fully manual prioritization is trivially easy with
commercially available technologies.

						Masataka Ohta