All things related to multicast

[Marshall Eubanks <>]

Dear Magnus;

Magnus Danielson wrote:
> 
> From: Marshall Eubanks 
> <>
> Subject: Re: MSDP Storm
> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:00:33 -0500
> 
> > Hello Magnus;
> 
> Dear Marshall,
> 
> > Magnus Danielson wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Marshall Eubanks 
> > > <>
> > > Subject: Re: MSDP Storm
> > > Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:39:44 -0500
> > >
> > > > I would agree. Mischievously, I would point out that there is an IGMP 
> > > > v3 RFC grinding along :
> > > >  <draft-ietf-idmr-igmp-v3-05.txt>
> > > > AND a MSDP draft grinding along as well :
> > > > <draft-ietf-msdp-spec-06.txt>
> > > >
> > >
> > > The actual numbers should never be put into that RFC. If specific 
> > > numbers are
> > > required, then you should have a separate RFC also running as a BCP to 
> > > detail
> > > it and updates can be made according to need.
> >
> > Correct, although a mboned BCP might not be a bad idea.
> 
> IMHO Mboned is the correct IETF WG for such a BCP. I just didn't imply the 
> WG
> to do the BCP in question.
> 

My guess is that the numbers will be the hard part. It is easy, after
all,  to say

MSDP neighbors SHALL limit the number of Session Announcements flooded out.

But it is not transparent (to me, at least) what that limit should be.
Most people running a RP with MSDP will want guidance as to what limit
should be
used and/or what limits are reasonable. The same can be said for IGMP
and PIM.


> Cheers,
> Magnus

-- 


                                   Regards
                                   Marshall Eubanks



   Multicast Technologies, Inc.
   10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 201
   Fairfax, Virginia 22030
   Phone : 703-293-9624          Fax     : 703-293-9609     
   e-mail : 

     http://www.on-the-i.com