Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

[IJsbrand Wijnands <[e-mail]>]

>> In your last email you say "..Misunderstanding: the draft says "MUST"
>> for both PIM-based and BGP-based C-multicast routing."
>>
>> How is that going to help you standardizing one solution?
>
> Well, if an operator deploys equipments with compliant implementations
> (implementing both BGP-based and PIM-based C-multicast routing),  
> then he
> knows that he will be able to activate the alternative it prefers, and
> that it will interoperate.

What you are saying is not very different from what we document in  
our profiles. You just call it alternatives with the same MVPN  
solution set, we spell out the alternatives and call it profiles.


>
>> I also pointed out earlier that the Morin draft does not say which
>> core tree building protocol needs to be used. This also does not help
>> in getting an interoperable solution.
>
> You possibly haven't read last revision.
> Based on Eric comments about P-tunnels, the draft know says: "[the
> recommandation is that] implementations implement the P2MP variants of
> the P2P protocols that they already implement [..]".
> Hence, if you have interoperable unicast tunneling techniques, the
> recommandation orient implementations to also provide a set of
> interoperable unicast tunneling techniques.
>
> You can argue that this doesn't give *guarantees*, but I think we can
> agree that it helps getting interoperability and that we can't
> realistically do more. Moreover, RFC2547/4364 doesn't do thing much
> differently and doesn't mandate either any specific tunneling
> technology.

I disagree, because I prefer an approach that guarantees  
interoperability, that is the first priority of the IETF. The second  
priority is to converge on a single solution. You are limiting the  
building blocks and hope the end result will be interoperable.

Thx,

Ice.