Re: [ssm] msnip status

hoerdt Mickael <> Thu, 20 October 2005 10:16 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESXT3-0000se-He; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:16:13 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESXT2-0000sX-J2 for; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:16:12 -0400
Received: from (ietf-mx []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA29417 for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:16:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESXeu-0002J3-4b for; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 06:28:29 -0400
Received: (qmail 22571 invoked for bounce); 20 Oct 2005 10:15:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? (hoerdt@unknown) by unknown with RC4-MD5 encrypted SMTP; 20 Oct 2005 10:15:34 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:15:50 +0200
From: hoerdt Mickael <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pekka Savola <>
Subject: Re: [ssm] msnip status
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by id GAA29417
Cc: Toerless Eckert <>, Brian Haberman <>, Isidor Kouvelas <>, ssm mailing list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>


MSNIP (or any logical equivalent, let call it protocol X) allows 
ressources saving at the following points of the network :

1. the DR(s).
2. the link connecting the DR to the multicast source host(s).
3. the host(s).

A possible scenario showing that protocol X is (relatively) useful would 
be the following :

. Exhaust the ressources available at any of these three points, 
sourcing multicast
  content without  protocol X.
. Activate protocol X, and replay the same scenario showing that now the 
  aren't exhausted.
Does it make sense to define a protocol X wich do not have to be 
in the routers, using possibily unicasting and/or pooling from the 
source ? As a multicast
application developer/coder, i would say that it depends on the SSM 
multicast service

Hoerdt Mickaƫl

Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> I think MSNIP tried to solve a key functionality for the SSM 
>> architecture,
> Could you elaborate a bit on what you think is this "key 
> functionality" and why exactly it's "key" (e.g., specific scenarios 
> you have in mind)?
> 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.

ssm mailing list