Re: [ssm] msnip status

Hugo Santos <> Wed, 19 October 2005 17:55 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESI9x-0001A8-EM; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:55:29 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESI9w-0001A0-DV for; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:55:28 -0400
Received: from (ietf-mx []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA02044 for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:55:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESILi-0002u2-M8 for; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:07:39 -0400
Received: from [] (HELO by (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.7) with ESMTP id 3443672; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:54:02 +0100
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5C7DB409D; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:55:05 +0100 (WEST)
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:55:05 +0100
From: Hugo Santos <>
To: Brian Haberman <>
Subject: Re: [ssm] msnip status
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d
Cc: ssm mailing list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Hi Brian,

>      The consensus is that msnip is not the solution people want.
> Additionally, there has been no one volunteering to work on the
> problem in general.

I guess the question is why MSNIP isn't the solution people want and
what is the alternative (if there is one). If there is no alternative,
even if MSNIP isn't a perfect solution, why hasn't the work progressed?
With the MSNIP draft in MAGMA reaching -05 i guess there was some
interest in the past so it isn't perfectly clear why this draft was left
to die a graceful/ungraceful death.

>      Combining MSNIP with MRD doesn't make a lot of sense
> and any such plans were abandoned.

As Stig, i also saw some discussions regarding this in the MAGMA mailing
list, IIRC it involved some capability discovery that somewhere in time
people wanted to add to MRD, and wanted to re-use that in MSNIP (to
announce configured SSM ranges and others, IIRC).

>      If you have people interested in the problem, have them bring
> forth ideas.

Personally i believe it would be good to have a solution that would
allow sources to be active only when there was downstream interest
without explicit signaling between listeners and senders. So in that
sense, i'm interested in the problem.

Also, if possible, i would like to hear the original authors' ideas as
why it is or isn't a good idea to continue with this work, and why. It
would be good to have the reasons archived somewhere for future
reference. If in the other hand the original authors believe this work
should be progressed but don't have the cycles/interest to do so, please
come forward and say so there might be other people available to do so.

Best Regards,
Hugo Santos

ssm mailing list