Re: Question about Chained Ref's

Jason Williams (
Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:17:55 -0600 (CST)

On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Brian Dowtin wrote:
> I know that reflectors can be 'chained' eg. video from one
> copied to the other.
> Has anyone setup a ref this way and if so would it offer
> any improvement over a monolithic model. Thats to say 2
> 15 person refs linked together vs one 30 person ref.

I've setup a reflector this way..but haven't really looked at the
differences like that. Most of the time that I've seen, reflectors are
linked for special events. unicast-ref or mc -inout (2-way) linking
reflectors doesn't really help much. The most obvious problems are the
clients inability to display more than 24-25 participants in the
participants list (I know the Mac Cornell versions have this
well as Mac 2.0.0 and Win95/NT 2.X versions). I'm not sure what happens
to the Open Continue traffic in cases like this. The bottleneck I've come
across is the maximum number of users displayed in the participants list.
I can't see it being any more efficient for two reflectors that are linked
and really close to each other. Having one on one side of the world and
another on the other would be beneficial since there's only one stream
going in between the two. It could feasibly be more efficient since
people could connect to the reflector that's closer to them network-wise.

There's also the problems of linking IDs..all the IDs (on a WP ref anyway)
have to be the same. If an ID isn't defined, all the traffic from the
source ID gets crammed onto ID 0 (not a very elegant solution). I'm not
sure how MeetingPoint handles this case, but I'd still like to be able to
accept traffic from other reflectors and stick it on any ID I want.

--    * Jason Williams -- Austin, Tx.  |     |       * University of Texas at Austin  | ___ |         * BS Computer Science             \_|_/
*************** **************|