Re: [magma] Comments draft-ietf-magma-snoop-11.txt (SSM)

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 12:27:03AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2004, Isidor Kouvelas wrote:
> > Excuse me but were you hybernating during the last call etc for this
> > draft? This is currently in the RFC editor queue!
> 
> Further, I think there was considerable pushback for configured SSM 
> ranges in IETF59 when we had this debate.

I don't remember that. I also know that our customers explicitly asked
us to have the SSM range configurable. But be that as it may. I don't think
we have arrived at the conclusion that there MUST only be SSM on the
default range, and providing automatic support for SSM on any range with
IGMP snooping is easy enough to do, so i don't thnk we need to gate a
decision on what to recommend for IGMP snooping by whatever discussion
we have over further down the road recommendations for scoped SSM 
address range support.

> If folks think that's important, it should be easily to specify as a 
> separate draft to the new mrdisc.  Then we'd see who would bother 
> implementing it :)

I wonder how many folks here have actively been involved in deployment
discussions for larger SSM solutions. I don't think that the active magma
working group participation should be so bold to exclude well working
approaches for scoping SSM purely based on their own perceptions. IGMP snooping
is currently the one most needed functionality in support of SSM and excluding
an already deployed and working solution to support this pending on the
adoption of a not yet deployed scoping approach doesn't sound like a logical
approach. And pushing the solution back to other protocols to be defined
and implemented first is likewise bogus.

Cheers
	Toerless

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
magma@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma