All things related to multicast

["Richard Mavrogeanes" <>]

SSM is certainly on our map. In many ways, it's easy to implement. You are 
right, VBrick is a vendor and must be driven by business.  There is only so 
much "if you build it they will come" a company can undertake, and I doubt my 
company will sell more stuff any time soon by having IGMPv3 support, as much 
as we can all agree it is "better".  With that said, it *is* coming.
 
But if a L2 switch does not support IGMPv2,
what good will SSM do anyone?
 

        -----Original Message----- 
        From: John Zwiebel 
[mailto:]
 
        Sent: Sat 5/22/2004 1:15 PM 
        To: Alan Crosswell 
        Cc: Richard Mavrogeanes; wg-multicast 
        Subject: Re: I rest my case
        
        


        On May 22, 2004, at 8:59 AM, Alan Crosswell wrote: 

        > 
        > Most campus IT staff are very busy these days just dealing with 
        > eradicating Windows viruses.  Some are probably happy they didn't 
have 
        > MSDP running when Sasser hit. 
        > 

        > Life sucks in the land of multicast.  But we'll keep pushing for 
it. 
        > 

        So, let me play my broken record again... 

        We need to have a standard directory that lists multicast sources. 
        We need to move to SSM. 

        Shep will say we need AMT, I agree, but feel that without the two 
        requirements I've listed, AMT isn't going to be useful. 

        So Richard, you are the application vendor, where's your "Multicast 
        Source Directory Protocol"? 
        (groan, another MSDP.  OK, its SSM, let's call them multicast 
channels, 
        CDP, Channel Directory 
        Protocol.  groan, not another CDP.  OK...) 

        What efforts is vBrick making toward transition from IGMPv2 to 
IGMPv3? 
        The switch folks described GMRP/GARP, can vBrick take advantage of 
it? 
        (Not that the deployed L2 switches can make use of it, but...) 

        What efforts are being made to get L2 switches to snoop IGMPv3 
        and MLDv2 and are these efforts orthogonal or complementary to 
        GMRP/GARP? 

        FWIW, each group is pointing fingers at every other group.  We're all 
        right.  How do we get past this?  It would seem that the IETF isn't 
the 
        right place for it because the problem isn't just an L3 problem. 


        Richard you said: 

        > I think it would be great if someone in this group could 
        > create/sponsor a multicast IMPLEMENTATION FAQ targeted at members 
IT 
        > staff. We don't need a "what is multicast" but a "how to" FAQ. 

        There are several of these already out there.  It doesn't help that I 
        can't 
        point you to any of them.  Nor does it help that none of them can 
        provide answers 
        for questions like Alan's L2-switch problem.  There is no answer so 
it 
        isn't 
        mentioned.  If I were an IT guy (I was once -- used it to launch 
        rockets) I'd 
        read the FAQ, try configuring it, and then I'd find my L2-switch 
would 
        hose 
        my unicast and spend the next three months trying to figure out why, 
        and I'd 
        finally give up as "more intelligent heads" ordered me to turn it 
off. 

        Alan is smarter than I am, he figured it out without having to be 
        ordered.  ;-)