On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, David Wallom wrote: > Currently there are a significant number of users around the community that > are using InSORS and AG1/PIG systems that use static multicast > address->venue mappings. My question is that with the dynamic address > mapping that is being suggested, are Argonne going to use an address range > that is different to that already registered with static venues?
You would hope so. I assume this is so that AG can support more rooms than there are [reasonably] available addresses. > The problem that I can see is that we use our system for teaching etc. If > one of these sessions was happening and a random user of AG 2 just appeared > in the venue all confidence in the Access Grid idea could be destroyed. In > that scenario also who would have the right to use the venue? As far as we > would be concerned the AG 2 user would have to go away and find another > venue as that IP address was already in use. Is the solution not to simply encrypt the session? You don't *own* that multicast address surely? jh -- "It's better to send middle aged men abroad to bore each other than send young men abroad to kill each other." -- Robin Cook
