All things related to multicast

["Greg Shepherd" <>]

239/8 should be sufficiently large for the two organizations to agree
upon a prefix to use between you.

Greg

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Leonard Giuliano 
<>
 wrote:
>
> Can you encrypt the traffic and just distribute the keys to the people you
> want to be able to view it?  The semantics of addressing lends itself
> easily towards "internal" and "external"; going beyond that is probably
> not ideal with addressing.
>
> Or put more simply, how would you solve this problem if it were unicast
> (WWUD)?  I don't see how mcast provides any special considerations for
> this situation.  However you would solve this for unicast, I'd do the same
> for mcast.
>
> -Lenny
>
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Julian Y. Koh wrote:
>
> -) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> -) Hash: SHA1
> -)
> -) Short question:
> -)
> -) We here at NU are working on a project where we're looking at the
> -) possibility of sharing multicast video with another school, but with that
> -) school only.  What's the brain trust's opinion on how we should think 
> about
> -) setting that up in terms of what group addresses to use?
> -)
> -) Longer version w/ more detail:
> -)
> -) We have a set of 37 video channels that we distribute to our campus and, 
> in
> -) the case of 2 of those (CSPAN and CSPAN2), to Internet2 and private
> -) multicast-enabled peers.  The CSPAN channels obviously use our GLOP
> -) addressing (233.0.103.0/24), and all the other channels are on
> -) administratively scoped groups from the 239/8 block.
> -)
> -) Another school in the area is thinking about using the same video 
> solution,
> -) and thus came up with the idea of sharing some of the costs with us and
> -) getting some of their channels from our encoders.  We are planning on
> -) setting up a private BGP peering session, probably via MREN.
> -)
> -) This content would only be sent to this other school, so we don't want to
> -) use our GLOP addressing.  OTOH, it seems like we don't really want to use
> -) 239/8 space either, since that opens us up to possible group address
> -) overlap.  Plus, we have filters on our border router that would block 
> 239/8
> -) traffic.  We could make exceptions, but exceptions in router 
> configurations
> -) are, as I'm sure we'd all agree, are not fun.
> -)
> -) So, is there some middle ground between 239/8 and GLOP addressing that
> -) exists for something like this?
> -)
> -) Thanks in advance!
> -)
> -)
> -) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> -) Version: 9.8.3.4028
> -)
> -) wj8DBQFI/h9TDlQHnMkeAWMRAs+RAJ0ZH/FAzhN0xuIgfDZewOeNTyk36wCggT1x
> -) 7Tn4HK8JECofKG7ROzmYbds=
> -) =8p/S
> -) -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> -)
> -) --
> -) Julian Y. Koh                         
> <mailto:>
> -) Network Engineer                                   <phone:847-467-5780>
> -) Telecommunications and Network Services         Northwestern University
> -) PGP Public Key:<http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html>
> -)
>