Re: [MBONED] MBONED Digest, Vol 134, Issue 10
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Mon, 02 April 2018 19:20 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C226512D873 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 12:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aPzkHO0i61b1 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 12:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD13012D870 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 12:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:77]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4555F58C56C; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:20:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 2B99AB0DEE7; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:20:38 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 21:20:38 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>
Cc: "James A. (Jim) Stevens" <james.a.stevens@rockwellcollins.com>, "mboned@ietf.org" <mboned@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180402192037.GA3723@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <mailman.5.1522436416.18425.mboned@ietf.org> <CAH8Jh6Ba7Qo7Em1Y9O-jpyNpEfnbCQ6u_OwC0zXemSTPpEtkCA@mail.gmail.com> <20180401130343.GA28411@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAH8Jh6BOT8cmirE1eWt5U-YxV9i7-sMAyD5FgGzMt7eOJpOj_Q@mail.gmail.com> <BEEE70F3-AD25-40E0-AFCB-F23C8C2E68E0@jisc.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BEEE70F3-AD25-40E0-AFCB-F23C8C2E68E0@jisc.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/5Vaok4Cnv38Dg8YRJBqa6rYsb3k>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] MBONED Digest, Vol 134, Issue 10
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mboned/>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 19:20:46 -0000
Agreed. My answer to the question is that we shouldn't discuss any
use of ASM we don't suggest to change. That would be a whole other BCP.
Fun BCP, but lets serialize.
Subsections of 4. discuss how going SSM interdomain can impact and
be sarted also with intradomain SSM capable apps. Thats i think the correct
extend.
My abstract text change especially mentioning PIM-SM wasnt helpful (with James
even better example of intradomain ASM wit Bidir-PIM). But explaining
exactly when/why to use intradomain ASM Bidir vs. ASM is exactly
not in scope of this draft.
Cheers
Toerless
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 06:59:03AM +0000, Tim Chown wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On 2 Apr 2018, at 05:31, James A. (Jim) Stevens <james.a.stevens@rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
> >
> > Toerless, we are using Bidir-PIM.
> >
> > I haven't been tracking ???RFC 8364, but from just glancing at it, I think Bidir-PIM is probably better for these bursty source/destination multicast applications as well as being an existing standard available in some routers and host operating systems. Doesn't mean I couldn't change my opinion as I learn more and it becomes widely available, however.
>
> Certainly BIDIR and PFM have their use cases intradomain. The question is how much we talk about these in the draft. The thrust of the document is on removing ASM components from interdomain scenarios.
>
> Tim
>
> > Cheers,
> > Jim
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> > Thanks, James, Tim
> >
> > Agreed. That additional text in the abstract didn't add good value *sigh*
> >
> > Can i ask whether you are using PIM-SM or Bidir-PIM for these type of apps ?
> > Always particularily curious about how well PIM-SM with bursty sources
> > does work well (or not) in different scenarios. E.g: Do you think that
> > ??????RFC 8364 would work equally well for your app environment ?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Toerless
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MBONED mailing list
> > MBONED@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
>
--
---
tte@cs.fau.de
- Re: [MBONED] MBONED Digest, Vol 134, Issue 10 James A. (Jim) Stevens
- Re: [MBONED] MBONED Digest, Vol 134, Issue 10 Tim Chown
- Re: [MBONED] MBONED Digest, Vol 134, Issue 10 Toerless Eckert
- Re: [MBONED] MBONED Digest, Vol 134, Issue 10 James A. (Jim) Stevens
- Re: [MBONED] MBONED Digest, Vol 134, Issue 10 Tim Chown
- Re: [MBONED] MBONED Digest, Vol 134, Issue 10 Toerless Eckert