All things related to multicast

[Toerless Eckert <>]

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 02:05:48AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Well, as a content provider, this does not seem like something that I
> should rely on, regardless of how good or bad a thing it is.
> 
> It is likely that application writers (those who have put in SSM IGMPv3
> calls at all) will assume 232/8 == SSM and that other multicast addresses 
> are
> ASM. So, as appears to be the case with MIM, I cannot assume that an 
> application
> will do the right thing with a SSM join from outside of the SSM range.

That would be bad if it happened, because it would preclude SSM
use within administrative scopes. 

> When SSM was set up, the consensus was that it should not interoperate with
> ASM.

Correct.

> One can argue with this (it seemed unwise to me)

It was a tradeoff between immediate applicability and maximum benefit.

> , but that was the consensus.  To set up SSM join information for an ASM
> group is thus a kludge. It seems unwise to me to try and set up a broadcast
> solution that relies upon a kludge.

True, but that doesn't preclude there to be SSM channels outside 232/8,
they just should be admin scoped, because there's no need for a further
global scope one.

> We will have a permanent SSM MPEG-4 channel up this week.

Cool

--
Toerless