Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc
Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com> Wed, 15 January 2003 15:10 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29285 for <ssm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:10:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FFOSJ17017; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:24:28 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0FFHsJ16735 for <ssm@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:17:54 -0500
Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29193 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:02:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.143]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0FF5x0E023007; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from eckert@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id HAA25436; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 07:05:59 -0800
From: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
To: Hitoshi Asaeda <Hitoshi.Asaeda@sophia.inria.fr>
Cc: Rolland.Vida@lip6.fr, holbrook@cisco.com, ssm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc
Message-ID: <20030115150558.GD2103@cypher.cisco.com>
References: <20030115.122655.70199744.Hitoshi.Asaeda@sophia.inria.fr> <NDBBLPHLPKFAHIKICCDPCEFICMAA.Rolland.Vida@lip6.fr> <20030115.151109.102792220.Hitoshi.Asaeda@sophia.inria.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030115.151109.102792220.Hitoshi.Asaeda@sophia.inria.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: ssm-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ssm-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>, <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast <ssm.ietf.org>
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>
One note on the discussed application requirement: If you're building a pure ad-hoc multi-peer application then what was said in before on this thread is correct. One could argue though that in face of overwhelmingly web based or bound applications client/server models for application architectures have become more ubiquitous because they provide easier architectural solution to some typical problems, and if such a client/server architecture is used, then the use of IPmulticast or SSM specifically can easily be designed to be really "single source". Eg: If you're building the white board application as pure peer to peer, each peer has to become a SSM channel source. If you implement the application as a client/server system, the clients could unicast to the server, and the server would have one SSM channel to all clients. Advantages: Easier model for access control, session management and ressource allocation then in a full peer to peer model. Given that today most networked applications are somehow started via the web, makes it quite easy to imagine the typical solution to be one involving some web server applet or the like. So, architecturally, i think one can make three classes of SSM peer-to-peer applications: a) client/server control and data: clients send unicast to server, server multicasts on one or multiple SSM channels back to clients. b) client/server control, peer-to-peer data: clients have control connection with server to learn about peers multicasting. Data itself is multicasted on SSM channels from each client to other interested clients. c) peer-to-peer control and data: There is no central server. Instead new peers have to somehow discover at least one existing peer, who can then signal to all other peers the existance of this new peer. This peer-to-peer control connections can be unicast with some topology between peers or can be SSM. From the applications i know, it seems to me that c) is today only predominant in application that have lots of good reasons to avoid servers. The typical examples of course are those in which the server(s) would be in danger of being sued or bombed away anyhow (eg: typical file-sharing software or military applications). For typical commercial applications you almost always resort to a) or b), and then b) typically has a lot of advantages on access control, synchronization, etc., and a) is mostly used in cases where the added efficiency of avoiding passind data through a server becomes important. So from that perspective i think that SSM quite well, if not better fits the typical application retuirements than compared to ASM. Cheers Toerless _______________________________________________ Ssm mailing list Ssm@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm
- [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Hugh Holbrook
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Hitoshi Asaeda
- RE: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Rolland Vida
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Hitoshi Asaeda
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Toerless Eckert
- RE: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Rolland Vida
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Toerless Eckert
- RE: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Rolland Vida
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Toerless Eckert
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Pavlin Radoslavov
- RE: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Michael Luby
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Daniel Zappala
- Re: RE: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch … Hugh Holbrook
- Re: Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch … Hugh Holbrook
- Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc Pavlin Radoslavov
- Re: Re: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch … Hugh Holbrook
- [ssm] building multi-sender apps with ssm Hugh Holbrook
- Re: [ssm] building multi-sender apps with ssm Pavlin Radoslavov
- Re: Re: [ssm] building multi-sender apps with ssm Hugh Holbrook