All things related to multicast

[Greg Shepherd <>]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, David Meyer wrote:

> >> >       So if we pick one of the current drafts (or a
> >> >  hybrid, or even new), will we have to build a new
> >> >  signaling infrastructure for the next feature not
> >> >  supported by the directly connected routers?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't follow.. Can you clarify?
>
>       It would seem that the general form of this particular
>       deployment problem is:
>
>          The router on directly the directly connected network,
>          or that router and some number of subsequent routers
>          in the path towards some resource, can't or won't do
>          <foo>.
>
>       Now, what is being discussed here is an instantiation
>       <foo> for the special case of multicast (or in the case
>       of a few of the drafts, even narrower: SSM).
>
>       Now, what happens when I have a different <foo>, say
>       <bar>? Is what is the signaling built for <foo> useful
>       useful when deploying <bar>, or do I have to go build
>       the (new) <bar> signaling protocol?
>
>       It's more a discussion about the Internet architecture
>       (in general) and less about multicast, although if we
>       could build something general, instantiating it with
>       this case (multicast) would be nice example.
>
>       Does that help?

Yup, thanks. I understood the desire for a general purpose solution, but
wasn't clear whether you already had an example. I guess I was just being
hopefull. ;-)

Thanks again,
Greg

>       Dave
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtp mailing list
> 
> http://www.shepfarm.com/mailman/listinfo/mtp
>