All things related to multicast

[Toerless Eckert <>]

On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 09:45:15PM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 16:48:33 -0700
>  John Zwiebel 
> <>
>  wrote:
> 
> So, my feeling is, document MSDP as it stands now, encapsulation and all, 
> put
> the draft out (as informational ?), and move on.
> 

Agreed for but one point, and i'm repeating myself here:
Just because MSDP isn't the hailbringer of everything that's
good, why shouldn't it still be an IETF standard, why only
informational ? After all it has damned much implementation and
deployment, and as far as the quality of MSDP is concerned it
certainly has gone through much more discussions an understanding
than most other protocols. I don't see why it shouldn't be
on the standards track the way it is now. Everybody who think he
can improve on MSDP extremely is missing the point: MSDP is the
best possible compromise for an unsolvable problem. It's an
approximation formual to square a circle, and as i also said: This
is just one application. For the enterprise application with PIM-SM
it is even quite good and anycast-RP with PIM-SM/MSDP should be
strongly recommended as the best currently known mechanism to
provide rfc1112 that is widely supported by vendors. What does
it matter if we have better things on the horizon - how long will
it take for them to take over deployments - long!

Cheers
        Toerless

> 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 ?

Please use the 232/8 space, that's what it's meant for. Redesignating
another range for global SSM would just take another 5 years.

> > 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
> > 
> 

-- 
Thanks
   Toerless Eckert