All things related to multicast

["Kevin C. Almeroth" <>]

>>>> Therefore, as many problems (read: tradeoffs) as MSDP, as deployed,
>>>> has today, it should be given in an RFC...  now whether it is
>>>> informational, historical, or experimental, doesn't really matter.

>>Oh, great. Please submit the draft to the MSDP working group.

Is there not already a draft for this?

>>There's more to it than that Kevin. The IETF is a consensus based
>>organization, and not everyone agrees with you. If you believe
>>this you should contact Alex Zinin 
>>()
>> and ask him to
>>shut down the MSDP WG. He can do that if he decides it is the
>>right thing to do. 

Of course...  and so the question is what is the consensus?  Is
there actually consensus that MSDP should continue on the track
that it is?

>>Here's a question: If all of this is so needed, why do we have to
>>push it so hard (why no market pull? chicken and egg, still?). 

Because those who own the content won't make it available.
Because those who could deploy multicast don't because no one cares.
Because the learning curve is pretty steep and so multicast is a "club".

>>SSM deployment belongs in MBONED. There's not longer any such
>>thing (thankfully) as MADDOGS. 

The working group has never struck me as the place for what I
suggested.

-Kevin