[ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc

Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@cisco.com> Wed, 15 January 2003 09:40 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA21014 for <ssm-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:40:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain []) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0F9sKJ27336; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:54:20 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org []) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0F9lDJ27092 for <ssm@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:47:13 -0500
Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA20939 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:32:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (sjc-vpn1-676.cisco.com []) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0F9ZO0E017146; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 01:35:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by holbrook-laptop.cisco.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id E7BE610B7A7; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:33:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Hugh Holbrook <holbrook@cisco.com>
To: holbrook@cisco.com
Cc: ssm@ietf.org, pavlin@icir.org
In-reply-to: <20021213202557.677B710B7A7@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com>
Reply-To: holbrook@cisco.com
Message-Id: <20030115093305.E7BE610B7A7@holbrook-laptop.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:33:05 -0500
Subject: [ssm] Re: last call comments on ssm-arch doc
Sender: ssm-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ssm-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>, <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast <ssm.ietf.org>
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>

I wrote:
> Pavlin wrote:
> >  * After enumerating the benefits of the SSM model in Section 1,
> >    what about enumerating its limitations/drawbacks? :)
> Fair enough.  I'll come up with something.

I promised to come up with some text.  How about this:

SSM is particularly well-suited to dissemination-style applications with
a single sender.  It can be used in multi-source applications, but the
multi-source "rendezvous" functionality must be implemented by the
application or by an application-layer library.  For instance, an
application that desires to provide a secondary data source in case the
primary source fails must implement the failover mechanism in the
application itself, presumably by using two channels, as two hosts
cannot both send to a single SSM channel.  SSM does not support network-
layer multicast resource discovery.

Ssm mailing list