Subject: Re: bandwidth and other support required for multicast

From: [email-masked] (Kevin C. Almeroth)
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 09:43:52 -0700 (PDT)

> This might be heresy, but I continue to wonder if all of that effort put
> into multicasting meetings is actually being put to good use.  Last I 
> knew, multicast connectivity was spotty all over the globe, the tools
> for using the multicast were hard to come by for many platforms, and 
> the quality of the experience for folks actually trying to use multicast
> to participate in a meeting varied from barely usable to completely
> unusable.

Well, I'm not sure what others have responded to (I'm on the road
and usually don't check the IETF lists when I do, but someone forwarded
this to me).

What you are saying is not necessarily heresy, but it is definitely
heresay.  

Multicast is now used for broadcasts and is not used for two-way
interactivity.  THAT particular function proved to be very difficult
to provide and not used very often.

In fact, multicast from the IETFs has changed dramatically since
the days of vic/vat.  The quality is H.261 and MPEG1, and we use
signal translation to capture from a laptop instead of pointing
a camera at the screen (we still have to use a screen for overheads).

Another key difference is that we archive all the video for 
download-and-play so that people can pull the video after the
event.

From your comments, I think the major failing is #3 below.  I just
re-wrote the requirements for what IETF hosts need to provide.  I'll
re-write the requirements for viewing content and have it ready for
the next IETF.

> 3. for the next meeting, update the IETF web pages to describe how to
> attend the meeting via multicast - where to get the tools for your
> particular platform, how to determine whether your ISP supports 
> multicast, and so on.

-Kevin

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 13:24:53 -0400

> to provide and not used very often.

given the increased diversity of IETF and the increasing costs also,
it might be interesting to see if remote participation could be provided 
by other means.  for instance, via email or im (either text or voice).

naturally this would require someone sitting in a meeting watching 
a laptop for questions from the outside.  I wonder if we could get 
enough volunteers to allow this to work? 
 
> re-write the requirements for viewing content and have it ready for

thanks!

Keith