IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] Next topic?

heinerhummel@aol.com Wed, 15 June 2011 20:41 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 6B40C11E8136 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.555, BAYES_05=-1.11, 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 qIdYeiokHUGe for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (imr-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.206.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FC4411E8171 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (imo-ma03.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.138]) by imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p5FKfokr009616 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:50 -0400
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-ma03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id 9.eda.1514df6c (43974) for <rrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com [205.188.249.170]) by cia-dd03.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILCIADD037-b2524df9190628b; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:45 -0400
Received: from Webmail-d123 (webmail-d123.sim.aol.com [205.188.108.132]) by smtprly-de03.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYDE036-b2524df9190628b; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:42 -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> <8CDE456BF2AAE6C-1464-3D2F8@webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com>
To: rrg@irtf.org
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:42 -0400
X-AOL-IP: 95.91.105.21
In-Reply-To: <8CDE456BF2AAE6C-1464-3D2F8@webmail-m074.sysops.aol.com>
X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: heinerhummel@aol.com
X-MB-Message-Type: User
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CDF9B3C4B7E4A3_1FC4_16C32_Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com"
X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33867-STANDARD
Received: from 95.91.105.21 by Webmail-d123.sysops.aol.com (205.188.108.132) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:41:42 -0400
Message-Id: <8CDF9B3C4A99C5D-1FC4-B13C@Webmail-d123.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: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:41:54 -0000

Some time ago I proposed as a next topic:



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.


There was no single response. Can it be that there is some further routing paradigm I am not aware of that either says:
- Multicast concepts MUST be stateful,
or
Multicast concepts Must NOT be hybrids (e.g. with   99,5 % involved routers experiencing UNICAST)
???






Heiner
----------------------------------------------------------
Be assured: np = p

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email