All things related to multicast

["Marshall Eubanks" <>]

On Mon, 13 May 2002 19:43:41 -0700
 Toerless Eckert 
<>
 wrote:
> 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.
> > 
> 

Toerless;

   Now I will repeat myself :) I agree with what you say. What I am 
specifically
agreeing with are the proposals to basically freeze MSDP as is, put it to be 
as
an RFC, and move on. I do not care what sort of RFC that is.

                               Marshall

> 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
>    
>