Re: [armd] address resolution requirement from hosts to overlay edge nodes. Any opinion?

And what protocol improvements are needed for multicast with overlays?
The multicast community is ready to help. Multicast makes us happy. Or
are you solely talking about vendor implementation, s/w release, hw
support problems? AFAIK multicast works fairly well with VXLAN, TRILL,
L2VPN... What's missing?

mike

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:05 AM, David Allan I
> <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> I have to admit I am a bit confused by the direction this is going.
>>
>> There seems to be a view that multicast is bad, yet it is a useful tool to permit a significant amount of functionality to be delegated to end systems, and is a part of useful address aggregation in the form of the subnet. IMO virtualized broadcast domains are good things, not something to be avoided, and they permit a trusted resource community to do a lot of self-organizing.
>>
>> Perhaps you should be thinking about improving multicast, not evicerating everything else. And as a general design principle, I believe that applies to most areas where the tail is wagging the dog in these deliberations.
>
> Theoretically speaking, it is easy to brush this off and say "let's just improve
> multicast", and if we do nothing then that is pretty much what will happen.
> However, as a practical matter, there is a lot of hardware out there that
> has significant problems with multicast.  This means we delay the deployment
> of such solutions until the hardware catches up (if it ever does), or let smart
> people who don't care about standards figure out ways around it that are
> non-interoperable, and worry about about the standardization aspect later.
>
> Anoop
> _______________________________________________
> armd mailing list
> armd@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/armd