| >
| > If feasible, it is recommended for applications to use SSM even if
| > they are initially only meant to be used in intradomain environments
| > supporting ASM.
| >
| > It seems like the words "If feasible" are reduendant given the meaning
| > of "recommended" (or at least the meaning of "RECOMMENDED").
|
| There was some pushback in earlier discussions on this, ?if feasible? was added as a
We have intradomain applications with up to hundreds of nodes doing many to many multicast IP packet exchanges where the nodes can dynamically come and go. (Although most networks only contain 20 to 100 nodes, I believe the largest such network had >250 nodes doing many to many multicast.
SSM is not feasible (and neither is ASM with PIM-SM due to the high overhead and dynamics as nodes come and go). So our applications use ASM with BIDIR-PIM.
We want to ensure that operating system and router developers continue to support ASM and BIDIR-PIM over the long term for our intradomain applications. I.e., we do NOT want to deprecate intradomain use of ASM.
Thus, we pushed back against the recommendation in 4.4 to develop new applications using SSM and in 4.5 to prefer SSM for future intradomain applications. In response, the draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm document was updated to put in the phrase "if feasible" in sections 4.4. and 4.5 so that SSM is not recommended if not feasible.
Note that we do not object to deprecating interdomain use of ASM.
Jim Stevens
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
