All things related to multicast

[Brent Draney <>]

Have you ever had a host configure their IPv4 address with the default GW address by mistake?

I have no great love for IPv6 or the morass of helpful methods that were loaded into it and the same

can be said for multicast it but the general class of issues isn't that much different.  There are just 

more blades in the swiss army knife to cut your fingers on.

I would like to see the community rally around a small number of important methods and work with

the vendors to get those hardened.

Enjoying the conversation and where it goes as it tends to show where the community's interests lie.

Good luck,

Brent 

On Aug 18, 2016, at 7:17 AM, Garret Peirce <> wrote:

>At least "plain IPv6 unicast", doesn't suffer from any corresponding
>deployment bug, if that's anything to learn from.  Imagine where we'd
>be with IPv6 unicast deployment today if a single IPv4 host could

>through its mere existence veto IPv6 use on that subnet.

Well...unless one calls v6 rogue RAs and the immediate resulting DoS a unicast v6 deployment bug.  ;-)   

Only mitigated by snooping/filtering at L2 which one could consider similar extra complexity to make unicast v6 viable.

Agree re: comments on IGMP v2/v3 as well as the consensus shift I read here towards SSM-only for interdomain.

I hesitate to abandon a tool such as interdomain mcast, just because of technical complexity.

That complexity might influence a solution, but the service need should be steering the car, not the other way around.  The need for interdomain mcast is admittedly low to non-existent, but like to think 1->many just hasn't found it's killer app yet. 

ASM is still up here for now, but just as Bryant Pond, ME was last to have hand-crank phone service, 

including party line service , perhaps we aim for that interdomain ASM trophy too. 

--

Garry Peirce
Network Architect
Networkmaine, University of Maine System US:IT
207-561-3539