Re: [MBONED] WGLC for <draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-04.txt>

Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> Tue, 22 January 2008 15:40 UTC

Return-path: <mboned-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLEu-0008RD-FQ; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:40:40 -0500
Received: from mboned by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLEs-0008R6-OE for mboned-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:40:38 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLEs-0008Qy-D2 for mboned@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:40:38 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com ([171.71.176.117]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JHLEr-0007js-VD for mboned@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:40:38 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jan 2008 07:40:37 -0800
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m0MFebnv013843; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:40:37 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m0MFeVo5011358; Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:40:37 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:39:25 -0800
Received: from [10.31.245.187] ([10.21.112.62]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:39:23 -0800
Message-Id: <52706D79-EEB0-4B32-8267-61C8223ED619@cisco.com>
From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20080122150510.GL22077@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Subject: Re: [MBONED] WGLC for <draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-04.txt>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:39:19 -0800
References: <26945.1201000836@aber.ac.uk> <758A010F-C191-4CFB-A664-F10183B44BDD@cisco.com> <20080122150510.GL22077@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2008 15:39:23.0824 (UTC) FILETIME=[F6988300:01C85D0C]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1969; t=1201016437; x=1201880437; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dino@cisco.com; z=From:=20Dino=20Farinacci=20<dino@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[MBONED]=20WGLC=20for=20<draft-ietf-mbo ned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-04.txt> |Sender:=20; bh=hLkR11eAU9u217i/qwVgOE72Z1Vtlvdm1UCyvhMJBdo=; b=GwIQtUdG83nvshT+OLLfOauhNJPyoLXwJLWSg0ojE+XkiyspO7XC9zs0w6 9LoH15ammZFhSQVgVeJ5XvR6Z8nR7QtiTzPH+e3TmWjK89n0zIri2Uqgs5tY re52vA/ujt;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=dino@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Cc: mboned@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mboned-bounces@ietf.org

> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 04:51:39AM -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>> tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk said:
>>>> It's all very well to try to block this draft on a point of
>>>> principle,
>>>> but the reality is that there are issues deploying SSM today, and  
>>>> in
>>>> getting globally scoped group addresses for ASM.
>>>
>>>> I would in fact probably argue that in order to give multicast a  
>>>> foot
>>>> up in general, getting initial services running with ASM, until SSM
>>>> is
>>>> ready, could potentially be very useful.
>>>
>>> I've been quietly reading all the emails going
>>> past on this issue.   I too can see the "point of principle",
>>> but I, like Tim and others, really do think we need
>>> something that will work in the short to medium
>>> term for ASM.
>>
>> Can you two be a little more specific. Are you saying the network
>> layer or multicast protocols need to do more (or less) and if so,  
>> what
>> do you think they need to do.
>
> I can't speak for Dave, but in my view its
>
> a) global scope group addresses for end sites to use.   This is  
> problematic
>   today for certain scenarios.   But obviously I can only speak with  
> the
>   knowledge of the community I'm in (from various BoFs etc we have  
> had).

Why isn't GLOP address allocation sufficient?

> b) tools to allow applications to determine available addresses within
>   the site.   This arises from researchers and students writing (often
>   but not always IPv6) multicast applications.    There's madcap  
> but...

This draft solves that, no?

> I think the draft answers a) sufficently well for the short to medium
> term (beyond which SSM will maybe get more uptake), while b) is a  
> topic
> I raised at IETF69(?) and on which I think there was a new draft  
> posted
> quite recently.

So when we get past this, there should be no issues? That is, will the  
excuses for deploying  multicast go away?

Dino


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