[xiph-rtp] Difficulties with several RTP streams for a Vorbis stream.

[Aaron Colwell]

I agree with Phil here. Having a solution for multicast doesn't add that much
overhead and will likely be a requirement by the AVT-WG. Inline periodic 
transmision of the codebook or codebook transmissions in a seperate multicast
channel are solutions that could be used. It's probably obvious by now that I
personally prefer inline transmission because it is simple and doesn't require
coordination between RTP sessions just to decode a single stream.

Aaron  

On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 02:31:56PM +0000, Phil Kerr wrote:
> The AVT-WG would not be happy with a submission that does not work well 
> with multicast.  I agree that support for it is not great with ISP's but 
> this isn't a valid reason for not working towards this goal.
> 
> It's like the adoption of IPv6, just because it isn't widely adopted yet 
> doesn't mean that it can be ignored with standards development, or 
> indeed application development.
> 
> -P
> 
> 
> Ram?n Garc?a wrote:
> 
> >[resent message. Bounced because of some DNS updates with xiph.org.
> >Sorry if it is out of context now: ]
> >
> >Sincerely multicasting is phylosophy at this time. There is no global
> >deployment of multicasting at this time. Most internet providers do
> >not support it. Therefore it is totally useless.
> >
> >I am convinced of the proposal of Aaron of using HTTP URLs.
> >Transparent proxy caches, already used by most Internet providers.
> >provide the necessary scalability.
> >_______________________________________________
> >xiph-rtp mailing list
> >xiph-rtp at xiph.org
> >http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
> >
> > 
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xiph-rtp mailing list
> xiph-rtp at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/xiph-rtp
>