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

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).

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...

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.

-- 
Tim

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