Re: [ssm] msnip status

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Thu, 20 October 2005 09:04 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESWLV-0004Xc-Iu; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:04:21 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESWLU-0004XU-Fk for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:04:20 -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 FAA26078 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:04:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESWXK-0000Ej-TJ for ssm@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:16:39 -0400
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j9K93mT27893; Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:03:48 +0300
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:03:48 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [ssm] msnip status
In-Reply-To: <20051019231203.GG29643@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0510201201450.27313@netcore.fi>
References: <20051019124841.GL9025@storhaugen.uninett.no> <ce8f3212bc8ba11a7739b4c9433e3a22@innovationslab.net> <20051019231203.GG29643@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, ssm mailing list <ssm@ietf.org>, Isidor Kouvelas <kouvelas@cisco.com>
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, 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.

-- 
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