Please explain what's wrong with my take on multicast scalability:
Every time a new sender shows up, the entire multicast core (RPs,
right now those running MSDP in the default free zone) has to be
informed. To "show up", the host just starts sending data.
Every time a new receiver shows up,
Hi,
It is true that there are certain scalability issues with Multicast. However
the solution of this is to have a very good InterDomain multicast routing as
well as Intra Domain multiast routing protocols. With that the problem of
host affecting the entire routing core is greatly reduced.
The
again, i don't know if the WHOLE IETF list wants to see this
discussion, nor if IDMR (which now looks at a fairly small piece of
the multicast picture) wants to be cc:d - the right place for this
discussion is probably pim, and possibly ssm, - idmr is about ready to
close down
the right
Folks,
There will be a BoF at IETF 50 on networked appliances, officially titled
Internet Personal Appliance Control (IPAC). The agenda for the BoF is
available from the IETF BoF/WG agenda page:
http://ietf.org/ietf/01mar/ipac-agenda.txt
The only ID which to be discussed at the BoF will be the
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 00:29:38 +0530, "Shivendra Kumar"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Shivendra Can we have multiple IP addresses associated with a
Shivendra community string in SNMP v1( snmp v1 agent )? Also, can we
Shivendra have multiple community string associated with a single IP
Shivendra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes:
In Rfc2868 (RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol Support),
Radius Attribute
91
is given to Tunnel-Server-Auth-ID.
However, In Rfc2888 (Secure Remote Access with L2TP),the same Radius
Attribute
91 is given to IPSEC_MANDATE.
Is it an
Well,
I find it disappointing that this document became an RFC without
be run past the RADIUS WG mailing list. It's also not clear if this came
through any WG (I cannot find an attribution in any groups charter
including PPPEXT).
It's clear that the author was unaware of
At 11:51 AM 3/8/2001 +0900, Jiwoong Lee wrote:
Questions. Is it a good tradition to form a 'design team' in a WG and to
let that group design something excluding the rest of the WG, and to
accept the design result as a WG official opinion ?
Design teams are a solution (not the only possible
