IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ssm] msnip status

Matthias Waehlisch <mw@fhtw-berlin.de> Thu, 20 October 2005 10:29 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESXff-000640-62; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:29:15 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESXfd-00061Q-Ie for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:29:13 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00195 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:29:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail1.rz.fhtw-berlin.de ([141.45.5.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESXrX-0002k3-Pi for ssm@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:41:33 -0400
Received: from waehl.dialup.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.243.126] helo=rz-thinkpad02) by mail1.rz.fhtw-berlin.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.42 (FreeBSD)) id 1ESXfR-000D1H-Py; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:29:01 +0200
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:29:11 +0200
From: Matthias Waehlisch <mw@fhtw-berlin.de>
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: [ssm] msnip status
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0510201201450.27313@netcore.fi>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.62.0510201217530.2696@rz-thinkpad02>
References: <20051019124841.GL9025@storhaugen.uninett.no> <ce8f3212bc8ba11a7739b4c9433e3a22@innovationslab.net> <20051019231203.GG29643@cisco.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0510201201450.27313@netcore.fi>
X-X-Sender: mw@mail1.rz.fhtw-berlin.de
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, Isidor Kouvelas <kouvelas@cisco.com>, ssm mailing list <ssm@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast <ssm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>, <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ssm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>, <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ssm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ssm-bounces@ietf.org

hi,

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Pekka Savola wrote:

> I'm having difficulty understanding the (relative) importance of a sender
> being able to stay quiet if there are no receivers.  The waste of bandwidth
> and processing power at the DR (who'd just discard the traffic) doesn't seem
> to be sufficiently concinving at least in the scenarios I have in mind.
> 
  but if you change the focus to the sender the importance of saving e.g. 
processing power is increasing, especially if you think about 'small' 
mobile devices.

  also there were some ideas to use MSNIP for mobile multicast.

cheers
  matthias

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email