Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:18:25 +0100 (CET) From: torstenb@vmunix.org (Torsten Blum) To: Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live.com> Cc: multimedia@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MBONE anyone? Message-ID: <m16iDth-000ONMC@onizuka.vmunix.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.1.20020225131347.00c8eac0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ross Finlayson wrote: (we are already ways of topic for freebsd-multimedia. If someone feels we should continue discussing this on the FreeBSD mailinglists, please ignore my Reply-To: and move the discussion to chat@FreeBSD.org) > Sorry Torsten, you are incorrect. The term "MBone" refers to the entire > multicast-routed subset of the global Internet. At first, however, prior > to the introduction of native multicast routing on some links, this > consisted solely of DVMRP tunnels - hence the confusion. http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/internet/mbone-faq.html "... The MBONE is a virtual network. It is layered on top of portions of the physical Internet to support routing of IP multicast packets..." That document was last updated in 2000 - when native multicast was already deployed on several sites for a few years. I remember draft-ietf-mboned-intro-multicast describing mbone as the virtual network using tunnels. Although the draft did not become an RFC (at least, I can't find it right now), it shows that even people on mboned-wg see the mbone as the tunnel part of the multicast enabled internet. Also, the "bone" part in mbone indicates it's seperate infrastructure. To kick off something, it's a good think to use tunnels to create some infrastructure. In the long run, it causes more problems than the native approach. > I have, and do - on an ongoing basis (e.g., in the IETF's MBONED ("MBone > Deployment") Working Group, which I participate in). It seems that other people participating in mboned-wg have a different view. I'm not sure if it still makes sense to have a working group that coordinates "deployment, engineering, and operation of multicast routing protocols and procedures in the global Internet", but in Salt Lake the majority saw it differently. > Please review the Internet Drafts and RFCs that have been issued by the > IETF MBONED Working Group. And please stop spreading misinformation about > "the MBone being obsolete". Oh, I do read drafts and ietf. I do deploy multicast in a large network. > (If the MBone were "obsolete", then there > wouldn't be an ongoing "MBone Deployment" Working Group, would there :-) At IETF-52 in Salt Lake there were a few people suggesting that mboned-wg is no longer needed anymore. There were good reasons to have it in the past, but that changed today. Multicast has been around for quite some time, SSM is not exactely new either. There is lots of documentation and good books. I really don't see the need for a dedicated mboned-wg anymore. -tb To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-multimedia" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m16iDth-000ONMC>