Re: [rrg] Next topic?

heinerhummel@aol.com Thu, 19 May 2011 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <HeinerHummel@aol.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA285E0726 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2011 09:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.368
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.370, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 OAhzE6XXctny for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2011 09:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr-da01.mx.aol.com (imr-da01.mx.aol.com [205.188.105.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2254CE06D5 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 19 May 2011 09:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo-da03.mx.aol.com (imo-da03.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.201]) by imr-da01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p4JGDKO1026677 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:13:20 -0400
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-da03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id 9.edf.ac5ea94 (45478) for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:13:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtprly-de02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-de02.mx.aol.com [205.188.249.169]) by cia-mc06.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMC067-b23f4dd541878; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:13:08 -0400
Received: from webmail-m074 (webmail-m074.sim.aol.com [64.12.141.32]) by smtprly-de02.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDE028-b23f4dd541878; Thu, 19 May 2011 12:12:55 -0400
References: <06B61955-CA9F-4CE7-9DA3-6DA8ECF6CD07@cisco.com><4DC90101.50403@it.uc3m.es><69F152CB-2FAF-4569-B0BF-1F97BB5A845E@tony.li><4DCB6F88.1080807@it.uc3m.es> <81A1DDDC-8CFA-4613-BFE2-F93FD28C900A@tony.li>
To: rrg@irtf.org
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 12:12:55 -0400
X-AOL-IP: 95.91.105.21
In-Reply-To: <81A1DDDC-8CFA-4613-BFE2-F93FD28C900A@tony.li>
X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: heinerhummel@aol.com
X-MB-Message-Type: User
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CDE456BF3433F4_1464_631DA_webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com"
X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33668-STANDARD
Received: from 95.91.105.21 by webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com (64.12.141.32) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 19 May 2011 12:12:55 -0400
Message-Id: <8CDE456BF2AAE6C-1464-3D2F8@webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com>
X-AOL-SENDER: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Subject: Re: [rrg] Next topic?
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 16:13:56 -0000

Proposals:


1) Discussion about alternate multicast instance identification:


Historically, a multicast instance is identified by some unique (?) multicast address. Meanwhile there is also ssm, where the multicast instance is identified by the sender's unicast address plus some multicast-address  from some ssm-specific range. 


Proposal: Use a new multicast-protocol type plus the sender's unicast address.


Con: Existing (deployed) multicast services have to be changed.
Pro: 1 billion IPv4-addresses would be freed for unicast which is quite a lot while facing the address depletion issue. 


The discussion should be led by ISP folks. I think, they would know best the costs as well as the benefits.


2) State-less multicast for about 99 % of the involved routers by means of cascade tree multicast
Example: By employing a cascade degree =10 about 90 % of the receivers wouldn't even become aware of being involved in some multicast activity.Assuming 20 hops in average between any two nodes of the cascade tree, only a half percent of the involved routers have be cascade tree multicast knowledgable.




Heiner