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

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 11:53:51PM +0100, Stig Venaas wrote:
> Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stig Venaas [mailto:stig.venaas@uninett.no] 
> > 
> >> As I see it the people using ASM today would prefer to use SSM if they
> >> could, but there are several obstacles. Perhaps we should rather focus
> >> on those?
> > 
> > I've seen this said many times, but I'm not sure how to interpret it.
> > 
> > Do you mean, those now implementing ASM would prefer to use
> > IGMPv3/MLDv2, filtering on (*,G), or do you mean that everyone wants to
> > be filtering on the source address too?
> > 
> > My experience is that ASM is what serves some purposes best, and that's
> > why customers often prefer to specify IGMPv1/v2 or MLDv1. It's simpler,
> > it's deployed (at least the IGMP versions of ASM), and it does exactly
> > what is needed.
> 
> The one unique thing where ASM is needed IMO is service discovery,
> autoconfiguration etc. Cases where you need some multicast address or
> perhaps anycast for bootstrapping... But this isn't something you would
> do on the Internet, just inside a site or an organisation.
> 
> In other cases I think you can do source discovery at the application
> layer and use SSM. Of course there is lots of complexity in doing it
> in the application as well, but I think that is a better approach.

I agree that would be nice.   One could look at applications like vic/rat
that are used within AccessGrid to see how the system could use SSM (or
has this already been done?).   

I agree for service discovery you're likely to be working on site or
organisational scope, so the problem is generally constrained.

tim

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