All things related to multicast

["Garry Peirce" <>]

Bill,

Re: v6, agree! I'd  like to progress on v6 interdomain myself,  but v6 mcast
peering is not yet possible for us through the NoX (assume low interest),
let alone for any of our participants.
Until that's possible, all we have is v4.  

Whether v4 or v6,  content will determine its use and expansion. 
That's why I've interest in trying to promote the development of casting
live events within our R&E as well as perhaps sparking interest with others,
or to learn of other applications for it.
When v6 interdomain mcast is possible (and video codecs support v6) the
content will then already be there to make use of it.
So I'm hoping to progress on both fronts at the same time up here.

Also agree that SAP/SDP is less than ideal and prone to contain empty
entries which degrade its effectiveness, but it's the only current method to
advertise a program guide globally.
I'm trying a gDoc calendar as well as another method, which requires more
user awareness.

In any event, it's nice to see some mcast discussion - a nice diversion from
the cyclic v6 host addressing discussions elsewhere   ;-).

  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> 
>  [
> ]
>  On Behalf Of Bill Owens
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 5:13 PM
> To: Garry Peirce
> Cc: 
> 
> Subject: Re: The state of interdomain multicast - ?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:57:30AM -0500, Garry Peirce wrote:
> > Using the frequency of messages on this list and working SAP entries
> > as a rudimentary gauge, the level of interdomain v4 multicast
> work/content seems
> > low (not to mention v6 which is not yet possible for us).
> 
> I think that the level of interdomain multicast is low, and not likely to
> increase. So I would like to talk about v6 multicast, since I've grown
jaded
> and find ordinary v4 multicast to be quite boring ;)
> 
> Actually, it's because I have been worrying for some time about how the
> transition to v6 multicast will affect the current users, though they may
be
> few in number. Specifically because we will lose interdomain any-source
> multicast, which means that the original vic/vat model of sources being
able
> to come and go as they please simply doesn't exist any more.
> 
> This means no more "TV guide" function with SAP/SDP, which won't be
> much missed since the list has long been clogged with advertisements from
> admin-scoped groups coming from misconfigured sources. Unfortunately it
> also affects the folks at the Access Grid, based on what I can find out
about
> how their software is set up.
> 
> It might be possible to rebuild the AG model so that it could function
with
> embedded-RP, if there were a 'host' for each session with a willingness to
> operate an RP available to all the participants. That's probably the path
of
> least resistance, though it still doesn't look like an easy job.
> 
> The $64 question, then: when will this become necessary? I suspect that
the
> pressure will arise in the APNIC region since they'll be the first to run
out of
> v4, and existing networks will eventually feel the need to go behind NAT
in
> order to keep growing (assuming that they run dual-stack, v4 NAT and v6
> native). I don't know when that will happen, though; perhaps we have a few
> years yet before any of the R&E institutions run out of their existing v4
> allocations.
> 
> Am I missing anything about the AG model, or any feature of v6 multicast
> that would allow it to continue working as it has? And are there any other
> widely-used interdomain applications that also rely on the traditional ASM
> model?
> 
> Bill.

Attachment: Garry Peirce.vcf
Description: Binary data