--
OMG!Code http://code.omahamakergroup.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OMG!Code" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to omg-code+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/omg-code.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
I'll take "Internet Core Protocols."
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to omg-code+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/omg-code.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
OMG!Code http://code.omahamakergroup.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OMG!Code" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to omg-code+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to omg-code+u...@googlegroups.com.
Mbone was actually multicast, not IPv6. You might be thinking of 6BONE.
Mbone worked well because it was small scale. Multicast routing at internet scale still doesn't work well if at all. The only real hope would source specific multicast, but you still run into the issue of managing a large list of receivers in core internet routers, and adding flow state to core routers is a very bad idea (scale, dos exposure). On top of that, if you join a multicast group, that join has to make its way via control plane signalling to the source. There are timers and delays involved (my mcast gets rusty here) and that can take minutes.
That, and no one knows multicast very well because it's not widely used (me included), so troubleshooting across multiple networks is near impossible in practice.
So, multicast in small administrative domains works well. Anything larger and it's easier/more cost effective to do multicast at the application layer. Then what you have is a Content Delivery Network (CDN) that does data replication. CDN administrators have a lot more visibility into problems, it scales well on top of unicast networks (which everyone knows about), and is faster and easier to work around failures. I forgot to mention that if a multicast router fails over, it can be a long time before you get your streams back flowing.
And this isn't really a vendor problem, multicast is just hard to scale and there is very little demand for it.
The IPv6 + MLD problem was a poor protocol design decision made by people that were thinking of reducing throughput in individual links without considering the switching requirements to do so. It's all in the TCAM, when a packet comes in, you have nano seconds to make a forwarding decision. Table lookups need to be fast. TCAM can do a lookup in one clock cycle, but it's expensive.