Re: New draft on embedding the RP address in IPv6 multicast address

[ken lindahl <lindahl@uclink.berkeley.edu>]

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

At 10:08 PM 10/16/2002 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, ken lindahl wrote:
>> At 09:31 PM 10/16/2002 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
>> >Most switches work fine as is I believe, though flooding the multicasts
>> >all over the segment.. yet where is SSM?  I sure would like to have it..
>> 
>> that definition of working "fine" doesn't work for my campus. berkeley
>> researchers are investigating the use of relatively high-bandwidth
>> multicast (>10Mbps per stream) and i really don't want that flooding
>> on departmental segments with one receiver. other Internet2-connected
>> institutions are in similar positions, i think.
>
>Smaller segments can be used if that's really a problem (100/FD should
>probably handle some 20-30Mbit/s of multicast per port without anyone
>noticing anything but I haven't tested).

umm. berkeley's campus network has approx 50,000 connected hosts on
approx 500 IP subnets. your suggestion sounds just a little bit expensive.
i'm guessing the campus doesn't want SSM _that_ badly.

>Sure, IGMPv3, MLDv2 snooping would be nice but it seems hypocritical to
>say this is the reason why SSM isn't being used..

IGMPv2 snooping is enabled now on large parts of campus. i don't think
IGMPv3 will play nicely with that. disabling IGMP snooping so that SSM
will work doesn't seem like a step forward. where's the hypocracy in
that?

ken