Subject: [SAM] pointer to AMT ID

From: John Buford <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:43:09 -0400 (EDT)

During the IETF66 meeting, relationship
of SAM work to AMT in mboned was raised.
Here is a pointer the current AMT draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-06.txt

_______________________________________________
SAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sam

---

From: Yangwoo Ko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:47:34 +0900

Dear John and others,

I can smell a little divergence here. According to charter, SAM RG is

<quote>
to explore and research techniques which improve multicast performance 
with respect to dimensions ...
</quote>

What performance measure is improved by auto multicast? Without auto
multicast or equivalent techniques, IP multicast just does not happen
across isolated islands. It is the problem of on-or-off rather than
that of better-or-worse.

However in your presentation slide set used in IETF 66 SAM RG meeting,
around half of problem statement (goals ???) is related to deployment
issue of IP native multicast. In that sense, auto multicast is one of
elements that should be considered in the spectrum of SAM alternatives.

In my understanding, the spectrum looks like;

   ?? ---- auto multicast ---- hybrid ---- OM ---- ALM ---- ??

Moving toward leftmost side, we have more chances to integrate well
with(or to be constrained more by) existing IP native multicast
deployment.

Just my two cents.