Re: MBONED Digest, Vol 134, Issue 10

Hi,

> On 2 Apr 2018, at 05:31, James A. (Jim) Stevens <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Toerless, we are using Bidir-PIM.
> 
> I haven't been tracking ​RFC 8364, but from just glancing at it, I think Bidir-PIM is probably better for these bursty source/destination multicast applications as well as being an existing standard available in some routers and host operating systems. Doesn't mean I couldn't change my opinion as I learn more and it becomes widely available, however.

Certainly BIDIR and PFM have their use cases intradomain. The question is how much we talk about these in the draft. The thrust of the document is on removing ASM components from interdomain scenarios.

Tim

> Cheers,
> Jim
> 
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks, James, Tim
> 
> Agreed. That additional text in the abstract didn't add good value *sigh*
> 
> Can i ask whether you are using PIM-SM or Bidir-PIM for these type of apps ?
> Always particularily curious about how well PIM-SM with bursty sources
> does work well (or not) in different scenarios. E.g: Do you think that
> ​​RFC 8364 would work equally well for your app environment ?
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned