[multrans] Section 4.5. "Combination of ASM and SSM Modes" in the Problem Statement

Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net> Tue, 07 June 2011 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
X-Original-To: multrans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: multrans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A292611E80C0 for <multrans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 06:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JTgUooJ4kyWt for <multrans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 06:22:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s34.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s34.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD4111E808E for <multrans@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 06:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU0-SMTP70 ([65.55.111.135]) by blu0-omc4-s34.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 7 Jun 2011 06:22:13 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [76.70.76.63]
X-Originating-Email: [tom111.taylor@bell.net]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP705FC414D1C22816F7CAE9D8630@phx.gbl>
Received: from [192.168.2.17] ([76.70.76.63]) by BLU0-SMTP70.phx.gbl over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 7 Jun 2011 06:22:13 -0700
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:22:10 -0400
From: Tom Taylor <tom111.taylor@bell.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "multrans@ietf.org" <multrans@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2011 13:22:13.0101 (UTC) FILETIME=[E99FD9D0:01CC2515]
Subject: [multrans] Section 4.5. "Combination of ASM and SSM Modes" in the Problem Statement
X-BeenThere: multrans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss the work of IPv4-IPv6 multicast." <multrans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/multrans>, <mailto:multrans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/multrans>
List-Post: <mailto:multrans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:multrans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/multrans>, <mailto:multrans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:22:14 -0000

Section 4.5 is really talking about multicast sub-tree optimization, 
achieved by taking advantage of the fact that there are multiple 
sources, each with its own tree to start with. ASM is just a speculative 
approach to the method of achieving this. It's not full ASM anyway, 
since there is no intention to treat the IPv4 sources as receivers.

I assume that the optimization criterion is to reduce the aggregate 
capacity required to carry the flows through the IPv6 network. I don't 
know whether the intended algorithm is meant to operate dynamically each 
time a receiver requests a multicast stream, or is meant to operate 
offline given the stable positions of the sources, at least. In any 
event, this sounds like an interesting research project, but I don't 
think it's a suitable topic for the Problem Statement.

My vote is to drop the section.

Tom Taylor