4 ms·

I would just add that router memory is still pretty scarce and assigning more of it to multicast state is not going to win you any more sales. A bit of a chicke

• the8472 7y ago
  > A bit of a chicken and egg problem there A best-effort multicast approach would help here. Reach as many endpoints as you can utilizing otherwise-unused router memory for the group memberships then bridge the gaps created by saturated routers via unicast relays.
  • kingosticks 7y ago
    > otherwise-unused router memory This makes it sound like a dynamic pool of memory which can be allocated for different purposes. I was talking about an ASIC where the amount of available memory for these state tables might be fixed and not available for sharing with other parts of the system. You get whatever the designers back in 2015 decided was needed and the point is there's not much reason for them to spend area implementing a bigger memory when the reality today is that it's hardly used. So I get what you are saying but it's not necessarily possible.
    • the8472 7y ago
      It is a bit of a hypothetical scenario. The assumption is that the router is already capable of multicast routing in the first place (e.g. whatever ISPs are using to forward their IPTV) and have some spare capacity for future growth in those multicast routing tables that could be used to enable best-effort forwarding.