wg-multicast - Re: IPv6 Multicast - ASM vs. SSM
Subject: All things related to multicast
List archive
- From: Bill Owens <>
- To: "Kevin C. Almeroth" <>,
- Subject: Re: IPv6 Multicast - ASM vs. SSM
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:56:58 -0400
At 8:27 -0700 8/7/02, Kevin C. Almeroth wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>It seems clear to me that SSM will have SAP/SDR like guides, and I wonder thatthese have not been created yet.
Yikes! Why would you need SAP/SDR-like guides? What function does
the WWW not serve?
I think the very small selection of multicast A/V content currently available makes SDR and similar single-point program guides useful, but that in the future they will fade. Today, there's often very little interesting content, and just to test multicast it is handy to have a single place to go see what people are doing. Of course, the majority of announced sources are typically dead, which doesn't help when testing!
I do notice, however, that most of the time I find out about interesting content from an email announcement or a website, rather than SDR. If multicast is ultimately successful in the commodity Internet, we can expect many, many sources active at any moment, and an SDR with ten thousand entries would be useless (cool, but useless ;)
As to the issue of ASM versus SSM, I haven't followed the arguments each way over the past few years so I can't really comment authoritatively. It does seem to me that there are relatively few applications where SSM can't be used, but some do exist. Alan's is perhaps an example; a large set of data sources that also wish to receive each others' data, along with multiple central servers that want to listen to all of the data sources. The current system uses application-layer multicast with each source opening TCP connections to some subset of the central servers, and each of the servers acting as reflectors to each other and the other connected sources. This allows some filtering and caching, which is handy, but also causes bandwidth and server overload. Already there's been a need to impose a hierarchy with regional servers interposed between the data sources and the central machines.
Of course, multicast for this particular app will not be practical for a long time anyway, since Alan is very likely the only person on the planet who has a data source that is also on a native multicast network - but we can still dream ;)
Bill.
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, owens, 08/06/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Alan Crosswell, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Bill Owens, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Brent Sweeny, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Marshall Eubanks, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Kevin C. Almeroth, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Marshall Eubanks, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Bill Owens, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Kevin C. Almeroth, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Marshall Eubanks, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast - ASM vs. SSM, Bill Owens, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Marshall Eubanks, 08/07/2002
- RE: IPv6 Multicast, Michael Luby, 08/07/2002
- RE: IPv6 Multicast, Greg Shepherd, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Marshall Eubanks, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Kevin C. Almeroth, 08/07/2002
- Re: IPv6 Multicast, Guy T Almes, 08/09/2002
- On avoiding the need to require snooping switches, Guy T Almes, 08/09/2002
- Re: On avoiding the need to require snooping switches, Tim Ward, 08/09/2002
- Re: On avoiding the need to require snooping switches, Havard Eidnes, 08/09/2002
- Re: On avoiding the need to require snooping switches, John Kristoff, 08/09/2002
- Re: On avoiding the need to require snooping switches, Guy T Almes, 08/12/2002
- Re: On avoiding the need to require snooping switches, Bill Nickless, 08/13/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.