All things related to multicast

["Marshall Eubanks" <>]

On Mon, 13 May 2002 16:48:33 -0700
 John Zwiebel 
<>
 wrote:
> 

John et al.;

   Before the recent Minneapolis IETF, I was strongly in favor of
removing encapsulation from the MSDP draft. During the meeting, however, I
changed my mind. What convinced me was the following argument :

Multicast only has a limited amount of political capital from application
developers, router vendors, etc. This limited amount of mindshare should 
applied
to issues, such as SSM, that are likely to advance the technology. Trying to
"fix" MSDP is a waste of poltical capital.

So, my feeling is, document MSDP as it stands now, encapsulation and all, put
the draft out (as informational ?), and move on.

Marshall

P.S. We want to start sourcing SSM video soon. A query - which would be 
better:
to declare part of our GLOP space to be SSM, or to use the SSM address range ?
Which would be easier to use mim with ?

> On Monday, May 13, 2002, at 04:26 PM, David Meyer wrote:
> 
> > So are you in favor of just leaving MSDP where it is (i.e.,
> > shutting down the WG and publishing what we have as experimental
> > or informational or?).
> >
> > Dave
> 
> In exchange for what?  Dave, if you make SSM happen, then yes.
> If you can't get SSM moving then I want MSDP to get finished and be 
> usable.
> 
> If I were in charge of the world, I'd make IGMPv3 mandatory on ever
> OS that is shipped starting yesterday.  But I'm not in charge and no
> one is listening to me.
> 
> Since ASM sometimes works "good enough", many people seem to think
> its just a question of fixing MSDP and the world will suddenly work.  I 
> seem
> to be the only one saying:
> 
>       "MSDP IS A KLUDGE THAT WAS THOUGHT UP ON THE SPUR OF
>       THE MOMENT TO GET AROUND SOME SILLY POLITICAL ISSUES
>       THAT THE ISP'S THINK ARE IMPORTANT.  IT WAS NEVER INTENDED,
>       AND SHOULD NEVER HAVE ATTAINED, THE STATUS IT HAS NOW
>       OF BEING A 'REAL' PROTOCOL  DESTINED FOR ITS OWN RFC."  
> If no one else is willing to sing along with me, then how can I tell you 
> to shut
> the MSDP working group down?  I can't.
> 
> If folks continue to expect MSDP to 'get fixed' and those folks are 
> unwilling
> to demand IGMPv3 be included in their operating systems, and those folks
> are unwilling to shift their thinking toward SSM but would rather rely on
> ASM and believe in the fantasy that fixing MSDP is an  option, then how 
> can
> I tell you to shut the MSDP working group down?  I can't.
> 
> No Dave.  I am -NOT- in favor of publishing MSDP as experimental until
> I have something that works.
> 
> SSM is here and could be in every OS (not just XP) in two months -IF-
> this community wanted it to happen.  But I seem to be the only one 
> trying to
> push it.  Pushing on a rope -- something I must have always wanted to do.
> 
> If you want to dump MSDP, don't do it because I said it was all right.  
> Do
> it because you know in your heart that the future of multicast is SSM and
> because -you- know it is going to happen because you have commitments
> from OS vendors and app developers that they recognize how difficult it
> is going to be to ever fix MSDP and they are willing to make the paradigm
> shift to deploy SSM and incorporate it in their products.
> 
> Otherwise, I want you to keep pushing on your rope as long as I have to
> push on mine.
> 
> z
>