3 ms·
came here to say the same! but then the multicast would make less sense.. unless that was a complementary red herring
by 867-5309 4y ago
came here to say the same! but then the multicast would make less sense.. unless that was a complementary red herring
- varenc 4y agoMore than a red herring, the multicast could be valuable because it obscures who's actually listening. Everyone on the network is receiving these packets so there's no way to single anyone out. Seems like a great move for spy software, 100% plausible deniability. (but I really doubt that's happening here)
- arethuza 4y agoMy memory is a bit hazy on this one - but I used to run the engineering team for a company that did multicast based IPTV for hotels about ~2003 or so and I'm pretty sure the set top boxes used IGMP to control what video streams were sent to them - all devices on the fibre backbone got all the streams but each device in the rooms (connected by copper) could only handle a single stream. So multicast doesn't necessarily mean that every device gets every packet... I think. Also probably not worth using IGMP for audio.... :-)
- bobdvb 4y agoIt's often UDP/RTP delivery with SAP/SDP for announcement/discovery, then you use an IGMP join to attach to the stream. The important thing about why you'd use IGMP Multicast instead of unicast is that you get a more assured latency which is important for audio sync.
- stonegray 4y agoThe best red herring would be to publish a blog post a couple years before you do this, where the author concludes that the traffic is harmless elevator music.