<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Charles Wright <cpwright@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></b></font>>On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Gareth Glaccum<br>>> 2) I am a data-stream (video), how do I get where I am going?<br>>> In an ideal world, multicast would be great.<br><br>>One could also just use unicast instead of multicast or unicast. If<br>>you've got an HD stream, I think it should be about 7GB/hour which<br>>works out to ~15.5Mbps. Multiply that by 5 front-ends (seems like<br>>reasonable number for most homes) and you've got
77Mbps, which is<br>>still far under 1Gbps and you aren't going to affect devices which<br>>aren't using the stream.<br><br>Yup, I agree with that in principle. What about if they only have a 100mb/s switch or hub though?<br><br>Don't get me wrong, I think unicast is the way forward at the moment. <br><div style="text-align: left;">However, I think that whatever is put in place, should be done with the idea that sometime in the future, multicast could be implemented /safely/ and an 'upgrade' to multicast should be coded in easily.<br></div></div></div>
<!-- cg3.c241.mail.ird.yahoo.com compressed/chunked Tue Jan 5 01:37:45 PST 2010 -->
</div></body></html>