[120787] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Experiences with Comcast Ethernet/Transit service
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Mon Jan 4 17:11:32 2010
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <485ED9BA02629E4BBBA53AC892EDA50E0A4B7E73@usmsxt104.mwd.h2o>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 17:10:51 -0500
To: "Holmes,David A" <dholmes@mwdh2o.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
The Deathstar opt-e-man service says they will knee-cap you at 1Mb/s of =
multicast.
- Jared
On Jan 4, 2010, at 4:56 PM, Holmes,David A wrote:
> PIM-snooping is not in the MEF specs, but should be if multicast is to
> work properly over a carrier's Ethernet service. Regardless of the
> specs, RFPs and other user requirements for Ethernet services should
> include a "must have" clause requiring PIM-snooping functionality.=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antonio Querubin [mailto:tony@lava.net]=20
> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 12:13 PM
> To: Holmes,David A
> Cc: Brandon Galbraith; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Experiences with Comcast Ethernet/Transit service
>=20
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Holmes,David A wrote:
>=20
>> I do not know of Comcast's Ethernet services specifically, but a
> general=20
>> problem with carrier Ethernet services that are based upon the Metro=20=
>> Ethernet Forum (MEF) is that PIM-snooping is not implemented for=20
>> multicast traffic. The absence of PIM-snooping results in the
> carrier's=20
>> Ethernet service operating like a 1990's style Ethernet hub in which=20=
>> (S,G) multicast packets are incorrectly flooded out all user ports.
>=20
> Not implemented because it's not in the MEF specs or not implemented=20=
> because of carrier operational practice?
>=20
> Antonio Querubin
> 808-545-5282 x3003
> e-mail/xmpp: tony@lava.net
