Re: [MBONED] A concern about draft-acg-mboned-multicast-models recommendations

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fri, 02 March 2018 07:57 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 A5E1B1241F8 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 23:57:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 0e8OGOGhSIVN for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 23:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 814E5120713 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Mar 2018 23:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4346DB1; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 08:57:28 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1519977448; bh=ZGwBrqKaIE7YBtsU7IF2Egh2MQXjWOYoWKvNraE0Dd4=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=wCAM1ZqXXX8rSV29JN0s57d45VA8ct+nSkVHT5OzvC4Sp+8L5OVwkQyTYqRLcJSJF JZDlXEz91AFbnbEIq86nhGZYovnl7zEKIJFZp/6rNVJ/owz2qDKkbfweAP84SZZIwz BbaDVUQtycpO4LHemF/dpRxmDYzUaVlUMZHKuSBM=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413C3B0; Fri, 2 Mar 2018 08:57:28 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 08:57:28 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
cc: Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>, "mboned@ietf.org" <mboned@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <e16f2a5580ec4e0e8977489680b14b49@XCH15-01-07.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803020852220.20609@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CAH8Jh6DikQa-9Kft0WdyGZYCPjWLScNVtYce2=EyL1q+0rAYVg@mail.gmail.com> <20180227231838.GI67472@cs-it-6805697.local> <CD402244-A3B3-4988-AB45-404B87DBEA94@jisc.ac.uk> <CAH8Jh6CRvvREZXoXH4mw8WecdHCzsvbPt5tHoNQwPGLauCoXOg@mail.gmail.com> <510DB303-A90E-45A8-A2AF-0366FD57122F@jisc.ac.uk> <e16f2a5580ec4e0e8977489680b14b49@XCH15-01-07.nw.nos.boeing.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/6zyZ9DVKFxJgp0Vu3h0sWZt8Iow>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] A concern about draft-acg-mboned-multicast-models recommendations
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: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 07:57:34 -0000

On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:

>
> I get that inter-domain, with PIM-SM, that simplicity cannot exist. So 
> inter-domain, SSM is actually simpler. It removes that rendezvous point 
> complication, and then having to find a better route around it, for the 
> multicasts.

It makes it easier for the network, but it might make it harder for the 
applications.

Personally I do not know enough about what multicast applications are out 
there and why it might make their lives much easier if ASM exists, but I 
imagine these exist. The classic case was a many-user video conference 
where you had no application layer protocol to understand who might be 
sending video to you. I remember the 90ties where there was a multicast 
group with lots of webcams in it, so you could get real time glimpses 
of the world. There you just pointed your client to the multicast group 
and it split up each camera into a separate window, without any need for a 
source discovery protocol in the client.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se