Subject: RE: imad: Re: mboned: brief IMAD BOF summary

From: "Leymann, Nicolai" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:43:41 +0200

Hi,

> 	Again, we were just brainstorming the problem, and this
> 	arose as a possible way to deal with the lack of SSM
> 	deployment. 
> 
I'm not quite sure if a "new" IGMP version is the right way to go
(even if it extends IGMPv2 only with a handful of features). From
my point of view IGMPv3 is a solutions which solves a lot of problems
we had with IGMPv2. For ISPs and content providers the combination 
of IGMPv3 and PIM-SSM provides a platform for the deployment of multicast 
services (e.g. live streaming) and the protocols are also supported by a 
(growing) number of equipment vendors. 

I think we should push the deployment of SSM forward. An IGMPv2.1 will 
result in even less SSM/IGMPv3 depoyment because it's a step back from 
IGMPv3 (SSM) towards IGMPv2 (SM) and therefore will slow down IGMPv3/SSM.

But we should discuss the reasons for a limited SSM deployment to better 
understand the problems. 

  regards

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

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:26:29 +0100

Hi,

> IGMPv3 (SSM) towards IGMPv2 (SM) and therefore will slow down  

The suggestion was to make IGMPv2.1 a compatible subset of IGMPv3,  
implementing the minimum set of features needed to support SSM. I  
don't know how feasible that is -- it's been too many years since I  
read the spec in detail -- but an easy to implement subset might  
speed deployment.

Colin

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:12:15 -0400

Hello;

> (growing) number of equipment vendors.

I would agree. Whatever political capital multicast has at present is a
wasting asset right now. Don't spend it on fixing something that isn't 
really broken. It
might have been possible to have made v3 be easier to deploy, but I 
think that
it's really too late to worry about that now.

> But we should discuss the reasons for a limited SSM deployment to 

One of my rules of technology is that anything that takes too long will 
be superseded,
no  matter what its advantages are. This is taking too long, so a lot 
of impetus has
gone out of deployment; we can talk about it but I don't think that 
there is much to be done about it. This is turning into the multicast 
long march. Given that, let's get it right.

On the other hand, Microsoft supports IGMPv3, and I hear that Apple is 
close to doing the same, if they are convinced it's worthwhile. That 
would be a useful exertion of whatever political capital we possess.

>         Nic

                                  Regards
                                  Marshall Eubanks