Broadening the IPv6 discussion wrote:

        you can go hybrid, like
        - client connects to server for game playing info (like location on the
          map, inventory and stuff)
        - client will talk with each other directly for video/voice-chat
        even with this, server load/traffic will be decreased.

This is exactly what I also had in mind. This would get 1:10 benefit
in bandwidth and actually enable this kind of activity.

        i still don't understand why you say multicast is mandatory.

Most consumer connetions (where this is feasible anyway) are asymmetric,
having 256k-1.5Mbps downstream and 128k-512k upstream. A decent video stream
represents 128k to 384k of bandwidth. If you have a small number, say eight
players in a game, you'll end up sending the stream seven times unless
you do multicast. You probably don't have the upstream bandwidth to accommodate
that unless you're lucky to sit on top of a new housing development with
fiber in the basement.

The next logical step to this discussion is what happens to multicast routing
when one million gamers setup half a million *,G and a few million S,G pairs.
Add a zero if it makes the excersise more interesting. Keep in mind that
one million gamers playing is less than what the network currently has at any given



My personal feeling is that on-line extreme gaming will be a very good "killer ap" for ISP's selling broadband.

HOWEVER, IMHO the current ASM with MSDP will _not_ support one million+ (*,G) groups.

ASM is limited in its interdomain growth potential at present, in both IPv4 and IPv6, and there is no real consensus on how to move forward.

SSM could support 1 million (S,G) only groups, but then, unless you are
going to have a combinatorial N! group explosion, you
will need to impose
some sort of hierarchical nature on the game (say, you only comminicate with the people (entities?) you are interacting with.

Marshall Eubanks

Petri Helenius wrote: