All things related to multicast

[Bill Nickless <>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 09:35 AM 7/7/2003 -0700, Greg Shepherd wrote:
>As I stated in the BOF overview, I would just like to describe the problem
>collectively. We can then turn to if/how it can be solved - either by
>putting together existing pieces or creating some missing piece. But we
>have to start by agreeing on the problem, AND agreeing on what a solution
>should achieve.

I won't be able to make it to Vienna.  Y'all had better take good notes!

At the risk of repeating myself, here's my take on it.  (Focusing on IPv4, 
without loss of generality to IPv6):

RFC 966 answered that question almost 20 years ago:

    Multicast has two primary uses, namely distributed binding and
    multi-destination delivery.  As a binding mechanism, multicast is a
    robust and often more efficient alternative to the use of name
    servers for finding a particular object or service when a particular
    host address is not known.  For example, in a distributed file
    system, all the file servers may be associated with one well-known
    multicast address.  To bind a file name to a particular server, a
    client sends a query packet containing the file name to the file
    server multicast address, for delivery to all the file servers.  The
    server that recognizes the file name then responds to the client,
    allowing subsequent interaction directly with that server host.  Even
    when name servers are employed, multicast can be used as the first
    step in the binding process, that is, finding a name server.

    Multi-destination delivery is useful to several applications,
    including:

       - distributed, replicated databases [6,9].

       - conferencing [11].

       - distributed parallel computation, including distributed
         gaming [2].

    Ideally, multicast transmission to a set of hosts is not more
    complicated or expensive for the sender than transmission to a single
    host.  Similarly, multicast transmission should not be more expensive
    for the networks and gateways than traversing the shortest path tree
    that connects the sending host to the hosts identified by the
    multicast address.

(Bill here again)

Bottom line:

I believe we should start with RFC 966.  RFC 1112 targets an Internet that 
no longer exists, and LAN technology that has long since been superceded.

For some time I've wanted to help write an RFC-1112-bis.  I'm very much 
looking forward to the results of this BOF.  Again--take good notes!

===
Bill Nickless    http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/nickless      +1 630 252 7390
PGP:0E 0F 16 80 C5 B1 69 52 E1 44 1A A5 0E 1B 74 F7     


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQCVAwUBPwm/K6wgm7ipJDXBAQHURgP+KHN5kuwgZFPMIRUNIsaPPINZzPd+Q2v2
3aPtB9YfIadNW9Ia0ENaH3X06+uwfVA6VK5ZPFLqJQh4K6Bh4yrggpzWYhxclDio
aNYkJsPHXzGoCUbiEzdLF4eg40mxR2DA0t5WzjwOAwMKqudvVJWyIvHcuRP04LgU
RXWZsj013Zs=
=37Vd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----