All things related to multicast

[Hans Kuhn <>]

Marshall,

For your SSM sources I suggest you use the 232 space for
several reasons:

* readily identifiable at a glance as SSM vis a vis the
address (i.e. useful for debugging)

* most apps (including mim) rely on the presence of a 232
address to recognize an SSM session

* 232/8 is a nearly inexhaustable supply of addresses.
Remember that SSM uses S,G for each session. Even if you
only have a /24 of host addresses you have 

  253 host addresses * 24 bits of SSM addresses

worth of addresses for SSM sources. I challenge you to use
that up! (using a Digital Fountain box is cheating ;)

Hans

-- 
Hans Kuhn, Academic User Services            office (541) 346-1714
University of Oregon, 237 CC                 fax    (541) 346-4397

Key fingerprint =  1E BC 32 03 AC E9 82 6C  44 4A CD 63 BB 2D 51 89

On Mon, 13 May 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

:    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 ?
:    
<snip>