Subject: RE: mboned: Country level Admin scope

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 10:38:18 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pieter Liefooghe [mailto:[email-masked]]

> If I understand you correctly you state that there is no Admin scope 
> that does this.
> But if I can get all ISPs that support IP Multicast in 
> Belgium to agree 
> on not to forward internationally a certain address range, that this 
> would be possible.

Yes, I think this is the best approach. If you go this way, then each ISP can assign a 239/8 address independent of the others, and everything should work as intended.

> The question then remains, what address range do I use?
>  From the previous posts I have the impression that the 239/8 
> range is 
> not the best to use ?

*If* each ISP can assign the addresses independently, yes. If not, then you sort of have to create a new sub-range of the 239/8 block, which might not be necessary.

> A side question: How could one implement this in SSM ?
> Does there exist something like Admin scoping in SSM or do I need to 
> implement PIM Join filtering at the router near the source to prevent 
> such a thing ?

I'm not sure why this would change anything, except of course that filtering would include use of the source IP address. For example, possibly all radio stations could be transmitted in every ISP's network using the *same* Class D address. Individual join messages would then specify which radio station they want based on the unique source IP address of that station. So you're conserving a lot of Class D address space, using the 32-bit unique IP address to select each station, but ultimately the filtering function accomplishes the same thing.

Bert

_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/

---

From: Beau Williamson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 11:03:04 -0500

At 09:38 AM 5/6/2004, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Yes, I think this is the best approach. If you go this way, then each ISP 
>can assign a 239/8 address independent of the others, and everything 
>should work as intended.

In general this is a bad idea because 239/8 is private address space.  A 
SP/Content Provider can not assume that they can transmit content in this 
space.  The Enterprise networks that wish to receive this content will be 
blocking all 239/8 multicast at their borders.  I'm assuming here that this 
content would be desired by Enterprise networks connect to the SP.  If not 
initially, I would bet good money that it would be down the road and then 
the Content Provider/SP would have to readdress the streams to allow it to 
cross the boundary.  Now we are back to where we started, GLOP. So why not 
use this space in the first place?

Beau Williamson