Re: [ssm] msnip status

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Wed, 19 October 2005 18:07 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESILC-0005jV-IV; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:07:06 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESILA-0005jK-76 for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:07:04 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02803 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:06:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESIWv-0003J0-OD for ssm@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:19:15 -0400
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j9JI6gN06716; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:06:42 +0300
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:06:42 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Hugo Santos <hsantos@av.it.pt>
Subject: Re: [ssm] msnip status
In-Reply-To: <20051019175505.GL26261@innerghost.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0510192102520.6607@netcore.fi>
References: <20051019124841.GL9025@storhaugen.uninett.no> <ce8f3212bc8ba11a7739b4c9433e3a22@innovationslab.net> <20051019175505.GL26261@innerghost.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, ssm mailing list <ssm@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Hugo Santos wrote:
> 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.

While solving this kind of problem might be an interesting academic or 
engineering exercise, personally I'd prefer not to use the time and 
energy for this at this point.

That is because I believe there is not sufficiently high demand for 
such a protocol, and there are WAY too many multicast protocols out 
there already which aren't really all that useful to be worth 
universal implementation, deployment, etc. (at least yet).

If (SSM) multicast becomes widespread so we wouldn't be doing the work 
just for the fun of it, let's revisit the need for the protocol. 
Otherwise I think we should let it rest until the time is right.

-- 
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
ssm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm