Re: IP Multicast Architecture Gap Analysis

Thanks Bill.


Dave

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 12:25:48PM -0500, Bill Nickless wrote:
>> I have submitted an Internet Draft to the IETF based on the strategic=20
>> direction adopted at the IETF MBONED meeting in Yokohama.  It is now p=
osted=20
>> in the IETF I-D repository.
>>=20
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-iesg-gap-analysis=
-00.txt
>>=20
>> Excerpts:
>>=20
>>     Internet Draft                                  Editors:    D. Mey=
er
>>                                                                   Spri=
nt
>>     Document:                                                B. Nickle=
ss
>>     draft-ietf-mboned-iesg-gap-analysis-00.txt          Argonne Nation=
al
>>                                                               Laborato=
ry
>>     Expires:                                                   July 20=
02
>>     January 2003
>>=20
>>=20
>>                        Internet Multicast Gap Analysis
>>                         from the MBONED Working Group
>>                                 for the IESG
>>=20
>>=20
>> 2. Abstract
>>=20
>>     An overview of IP multicast as deployed in the Internet today, fro=
m
>>     the perspective of the MBONED working group.  Existing
>>     infrastructure is examined critically.  Suggestions for possible
>>     improvement of the overall architecture are presented for the IESG.
>>=20
>>=20
>> 3. Table of Contents
>>=20
>>     1. Status of this Memo............................................=
.1
>>     2. Abstract.......................................................=
.1
>>     4. Overview and Background........................................=
.2
>>     5. Conventions used in this document..............................=
.2
>>     6. RFC 1112.......................................................=
.3
>>     7. Source-Specific Multicast......................................=
.3
>>     8. Host Extensions for IP Multicast...............................=
.3
>>     9. Mapping of Multicast Group Addresses to Ethernet MAC Addresses.=
.4
>>     10. Local Subnet Receiver Interest Protocol (IGMP)................=
.4
>>     11. Collision-Sense Media Access Sender Model.....................=
.4
>>     12. Multicast Gateways............................................=
.5
>>     13. Dense Mode Internet Multicast Routing.........................=
.5
>>     14. Reachability Protocol Independent Multicast Routing...........=
.6
>>     15. Sparse Mode Internet Multicast Routing........................=
.7
>>     16. Mixed Dense/Sparse Mode Internet Multicast Routing............=
.7
>>     17. Bursty Sources vs. Sparse Mode Forwarding State Maintenance...=
.8
>>     18. Co-mingled Source Knowledge and Packet Forwarding.............=
.8
>>     19. Co-mingled IP and Ethernet Routing............................=
.9
>>     20. Inter-Domain IP Multicast Exchange Points.....................=
.9
>>     21. IP Multicast Architectural Gaps...............................=
11
>>     22. Recommendations from MBONED to IESG...........................=
11
>>     23. Acknowledgements..............................................=
13
>>     24. Security Considerations.......................................=
13
>>     25. References....................................................=
14
>>     26. Editors' Addresses............................................=
14
>>=20
>> 4. Overview and Background
>>=20
>>     At the IETF-54 meeting, the MBONED working group recommended that
>>     the MSDP working group publish their current work as an
>>     Informational RFC and shut down.  Some participants in the MBONED
>>     and MSDP working groups believed that the recurring discussions
>>     about the operation of MSDP were proxy arguments about the IP
>>     Multicast service model, and how that model can be supported in th=
e
>>     Internet.  Participants came to rough consensus that the best plac=
e
>>     for these overall service model and deployment questions is the
>>     MBONED working group.
>>=20
>>     A two phase approach was adopted.  The short-term objective is to
>>     document existing MSDP implementations and deployments.  A longer-
>>     term objective for the MBONED working group is to perform a "gap
>>     analysis" of the existing IP multicast service model, protocols, a=
nd
>>     deployment.
>>=20
>>     This document represents that =F4gap analysis,=F6 and is intended =
as
>>     advice to IESG.  The MBONED participants hope the IESG will consid=
er
>>     this advice in the context of IESG guidance for further IP multica=
st
>>     protocol development and deployment work.
>>=20
>>=20
>> =3D=3D=3D
>> Bill Nickless    http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/nickless      +1 630 25=
2 7390
>> PGP:0E 0F 16 80 C5 B1 69 52 E1 44 1A A5 0E 1B 74 F7     [email protected]=
nl.gov