After years of maintaining and using an application suite that relies on multicast for internal communication, I would hesitate to use "reliable" and "multicast" in the same sentence. Multicast is great in theory, but comes with so many pitfalls and grievances in practice. Mostly due to unreliable handling of switches, routers, network adapters and TCP/IP stacks in operating systems.
Just to mention a few headaches I've been dealing with over the years: multicast sockets that joins the wrong network adapter interface (due to adapter priorities), losing multicast membership after resume from sleep/hibernate, switches/routers just dropping multicast membership after a while (especially when running in VMs and "enterprise" systems like SUSE Linux and Windows Server, all kinds of socket reuse problems, etc.
I don't even dare to think about how many hours I have wasted on issues listed above. I would never rely on multicast again when developing a new system.
But that said, the application suite, a mission control system for satellites, works great most of the time (typically on small, controlled subnets, using physical installations instead of VMs) and has served us well.
Just to mention a few headaches I've been dealing with over the years: multicast sockets that joins the wrong network adapter interface (due to adapter priorities), losing multicast membership after resume from sleep/hibernate, switches/routers just dropping multicast membership after a while (especially when running in VMs and "enterprise" systems like SUSE Linux and Windows Server, all kinds of socket reuse problems, etc.
I don't even dare to think about how many hours I have wasted on issues listed above. I would never rely on multicast again when developing a new system.
But that said, the application suite, a mission control system for satellites, works great most of the time (typically on small, controlled subnets, using physical installations instead of VMs) and has served us well.