Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:36:09 -0800
From: Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| As much as I would like to see it otherwise, except for link (and maybe
| subnet) scoped multicast, I don't think we can assume multicast across a
| wider scope. I suspect it will be more the exception than the norm.
When I saw Thomas' question, I thought that too.
In the intervening few days however, I happened to get asked by people
back home why the "ghost" program (that does something or other with PCs)
wasn't working through our routers - it worked fine with client & server
on the same cable, but not otherwise.
They suspected broadcast packets not being "helped" - I asked for a
packet trace (I'm not there at the minute) and what appears is IP multicast.
So, on my net more than link wide multicast didn't exist last week,
and does exist this week...
Of course, this is IPv4, not IPv6 - but I think it demonstrates the
point. That is, that all it is going to take is for there to be an
application that actually needs multicast, and multicast will appear
(at least within the site scope, perhaps even more than that).
It would be a mistake to start counting nets with multicast currently
enabled (or where if you ask the admin they'd say "sure, I can enable
that") and from the low number of responses, start avoiding requiring
multicast for new protocols. Just require it, that itself will be
enough to get it implemented & deployed.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
