Re: [ssm] AD-review comments on draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt

Pekka Savola <> Fri, 16 July 2004 05:27 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA21214 for <>; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:27:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BlLAQ-0007VQ-Gu; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:21:54 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BlL5O-0006fg-Hf for; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:16:42 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20704 for <>; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:16:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BlL5M-0002Iv-3J for; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:16:40 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BlL4R-0001x5-00 for; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:15:43 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BlL3G-0001Kd-00 for; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:14:31 -0400
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i6G5DhH08627; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:13:43 +0300
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:13:43 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <>
To: Hugh Holbrook <>
Subject: Re: [ssm] AD-review comments on draft-ietf-ssm-arch-04.txt
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Cc: Alex Zinin <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Hugh Holbrook wrote:
> I don't believe that there is really enough experience with the use of
> a multicast-specific topology (with some minor exceptions like static
> routes to multicast sources) to mandate anything about it.
> Specifically, I don't think it's appropriate to mandate MBGP at this
> point.  It is not a requirement for multicast interoperability, and I
> don't think it would be appropriate to say anything about it in the
> architecture spec.  This information is based on discussions with some
> of the more knowledgeable folks on the topic at Cisco; anyone who has
> different (or even the same) opinion on this topic is encouraged to
> comment.
> If there is rough consensus on the mailing list, then I will send some
> proposed text to the mailing list and revise and resubmit the draft
> this week.
> Comments from the working group (or ADs) are appreciated.

Agree with all you're writing; IMHO, MBGP should not be a requirement.

There is an operational problem though, but it's of wider scope then
just SSM.  That is, if you do use MBGP, e.g., have an MBGP default
route, how do you handle those multicasters which don't advertise
their address space with MBGP. In other words, there will inevitably
be some amount of mess when you try to combine multiple protocols as
information sources...

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

ssm mailing list