Re: [ssm] Who uses SSM?

Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com> Wed, 17 November 2004 23:15 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00745 for <ssm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:15:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CUYjd-0007eh-9W; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:57:09 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CUYcK-0005r2-U1 for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:49:37 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28143 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:49:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.201]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CUYep-0008E0-0h for ssm@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:52:12 -0500
Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a36so953855rnf for <ssm@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:48:59 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=nAY2I9bj2iBWHgmd2rQN84VptVkiEo8+1LdFFELslTGNspZOOOmYsjvp/Uqcq5Wd8qlGB4JLWHQDSNgmni5GAUkZTTxTDK4nRb2CdjEtIVdhS91zsgsGm8/adnjPO4sLfKqgbNDAau7G93f1nAccMpXfprKzG3O0TkzmYet0nJk=
Received: by 10.38.83.67 with SMTP id g67mr267642rnb; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:48:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.38.66.42 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:48:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <dcad22d804111714485e045713@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:48:58 -0500
From: Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com>
To: Beau Williamson <bwilliam@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [ssm] Who uses SSM?
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20041117091703.033fc290@edison.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <22794.1100698216@www62.gmx.net> <6.0.0.22.2.20041117091703.033fc290@edison.cisco.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ssm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com>
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yes, indeed. The routers are the easy part. To adopt to SSM an
application developer will need

- An OS that supports IGMPv3
- An API that supports IGMPv3
- Code to obtain Source IP address information in addition to group addresses

To implement it, typically a network architect will need

- minor changes to "core" routers
- IGMPv3 support from "edge" routers (may be expensive if these are old)
- IGMP v3 support from IGMP snooping switches (an unexpected  gotcha
for the multicast
community, I think it is fair to say)

It will come, but it's a slow train indeed.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:21:08 -0600, Beau Williamson <bwilliam@cisco.com> wrote:
> At 11/17/2004 07:30 AM, Marc Barisch wrote:
> 
> 
> >Hi
> >
> >I have read about the advantages of PIM-SSM over PIM-SM from a technical
> >point of view.
> >For a seminar paper at my university, I would like to provide some figures
> >concerning the deployment of the different PIM modes, especially regarding
> >TV broadcast over packet networks.
> >
> >Does anybody know of providers using PIM-SSM or are using all PIM-SM?
> >Are there any commercial deployments regarding PIM-SSM and IPv6.
> >
> >Thanks in advance
> >
> >Marc
> 
> Marc,
> 
> This is a classic case of "The spirit is willing but the flesh (hardware)
> is weak."
> 
> The advantages are certainly well known and there is a growing push to
> build networks that support SSM.  Unfortunately, the support for IGMPv3 is
> still not pervasive enough in end-stations and (in some cases) edge routers
> and switches to actually deploy SSM.  This is slowly changing and I expect
> (I hope) that we will soon see greater deployments of SSM for one-to-many
> multicast applications.
> 
> Beau Williamson 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ssm mailing list
> ssm@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm
>

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