Re: [MBONED] MBONED Digest, Vol 134, Issue 10

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Sun, 01 April 2018 13:03 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 40CDB120724 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 06:03:51 -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 r0KoEveiiH1R for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 06:03:48 -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 602781200E5 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 06:03:48 -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 2588958C4B3; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 15:03:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 07C9CB0DEC9; Sun, 1 Apr 2018 15:03:43 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 15:03:43 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: "James A. (Jim) Stevens" <james.a.stevens@rockwellcollins.com>
Cc: mboned@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180401130343.GA28411@faui40p.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <mailman.5.1522436416.18425.mboned@ietf.org> <CAH8Jh6Ba7Qo7Em1Y9O-jpyNpEfnbCQ6u_OwC0zXemSTPpEtkCA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAH8Jh6Ba7Qo7Em1Y9O-jpyNpEfnbCQ6u_OwC0zXemSTPpEtkCA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/Q2tItvZjeFZdLRAN-r4RAgebQBg>
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: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 13:03:51 -0000

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

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:19:14PM -0500, James A. (Jim) Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 21:21:34 +0000
> ???
> , Tim Chown <Tim.Chown@jisc.ac.uk>  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > We've just posted a new -01 version of the draft on deprecating
> > interdomain ASM. Toerless is now also an author.
> >
> > We'll be working on a further new version in the coming weeks, so all
> > comments and suggestions for improvement are very welcome.
> >
> > The WG session agreed WG adoption, but I've posted the -01 as an
> > individual draft as the adoption hasn't - I think - been confirmed on the
> > list.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Tim
> >
> > > On 29 Mar 2018, at 22:17, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories.
> > >
> > >
> > >        Title           : Deprecating ASM for Interdomain Multicast
> > >        Authors         : Mikael Abrahamsson
> > >                          Tim Chown
> > >                          Lenny Giuliano
> > >                          Toerless Eckert
> > >       Filename        : draft-acg-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm-01.txt
> > >       Pages           : 15
> > >       Date            : 2018-03-29
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >   This document recommends deprecation of the use of Any-Source
> > >   Multicast (ASM) for interdomain multicast.  It recommends the use of
> > >   Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) for interdomain multicast
> > >   applications, and that hosts and routers that are expected to handle
> > >   such applications fully support SSM.  The recommendations in this
> > >   document do not preclude the continued use of ASM within a single
> > >   organisation or domain, and are especially easy to adopt when already
> > >   using the preferred ASM protocol options there (PIM-SM).
> >
> >
> ???I think that this is an appropriate document.  One picky comment with
> respect to the following paragraph from the introduction:
> "   This document does not make any statement on the use of ASM within a
> 
>    single domain or organisation, and therefore does not preclude its
>    use.  Indeed, there may be a number of application contexts for which
>    ASM is currently still considered well-suited within a single domain.
> 
> "???
> ???As per the earlier emails, there are some applications contexts for which
> ASM is still the best suited approach.??? For example, in an earlier email, I
> mentioned a multicast scenario with many dynamic bidirectional sources and
> receivers, where we use ASM rather than SSM model to reduce management
> overhead and simplify source discovery by not having to track which nodes
> have joined which groups in order to do an SSM join to all the members of
> the group.
> 
> Thus, I recommend rewording the last sentence in that paragraph to
> something like
> "    Indeed, there are application contexts for which
> 
>    ASM is still considered well-suited within a single domain."
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Jim Stevens

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


-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de