[AusNOG] Why not Symmetric ingress and egress?

[Michael Christie (micchris)]

"There'll never be a reason in a video delivery system for a high
bandwidth backchannel - "

Unless of course the video is bi-directional. > Skype, HD video conf,
tele-medicine, collaborative education...

Mike.

-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Mark Smith
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 8:40 AM
To: Paul Brooks
Cc: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Why not Symmetric ingress and egress?

Just quickly,

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 22:02:21 +1000
Paul Brooks <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au> wrote:

> On 17/06/2010 8:09 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> > My guess is that ADSL was chosen as the broadband technology to use,
> > rather than a symmetrical DSL technology (not in Australia, I'm
> > talking by the broadband groups who standardise it i.e. the Annex M
> > people), because it sounded right for the way people were using the
> > Internet at the time (consumers rather than producers), rather than
> > understanding that the Internet protocols have operated over
symmetric
> > links for most of their life and it is therefore an unstated design
> > assumption. If that wasn't the case, I don't think the above RFC
would
> > exist and be a Best Current Practice RFC.
> >    
> Nice try Mark, but your guess would be wrong!. ADSL was developed as a

> technology for video delivery
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly - a purely asymmetric traffic profile. There'll never be a
reason in a video delivery system for a high bandwidth backchannel -
because it is only for video signalling and nothing else.