[33219] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SSM vs MSDP (was: IP Multicasting)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Thu Jan 4 06:49:11 2001
Message-ID: <3A5462F9.C9F0FFFD@21rst-century.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 06:48:08 -0500
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@21rst-century.com>
Reply-To: tme@21rst-century.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il>
Cc: Bill Nickless <nickless@mcs.anl.gov>,
Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> At 10:40 03/01/01 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> >You left out that SAP/SDR will not support SSM. There has been a big
> >argument about this in the SSM
> >IETF WG. The consensus is that source info will be communicated out of
> >band (i.e., web pages).
> >As usual, I take the minority viewpoint. I think that SSM will NEED
> >something like SAP.
> >Just think about doing a beacon project where beacons can join at will -
> >how would you know in SSM ?
> >I think that there sorts of consideration will lead to a re-inventing of
> >the SAP wheel in some scalable fashion.
>
> IPmc requires many debugging tools, builtin to the native router, to make
> it all work. Without sap/sdr capabilities, SSM will never take
> off. Having all the web pages out there are nice extras, but do not
> replace the needed builtin tools.
>
> -Hank
>
I'm not sure I agree with this. My case for a SDP like ability is basically
a business / convenience one - i.e., it would be nice to have. I do not
see why it would be really essential. Also, if you don't believe that
ISM will
die, then neither will SAP.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
Multicast Technologies, Inc.
10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 201
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609
e-mail : tme@on-the-i.com http://www.on-the-i.com
