Subject: [ssm] Re: your mail

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:24:53 -0700

On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 07:07:39AM -0700, Dino Farinacci wrote:
> >> So, What is missing from IPv4 SSM today apart from a deployment effort
> >> today ?
> 
>     Nothing.

Ok, let's see if you would consider all of the below to be deployment.
I would consider most of this to be development, not deployment. Anyhow,
the list isn't short.

Technologies:

- Source redundancy solutions for SSM channels.

- Check wether all transport/session and higher level IETF specifications
  that carry group addresses can also carry source addresses (eg:
  SDP source filter extensions). Finalization of RTCP for SSM solutions. 

Standards:

- A good understanding how to do SSM within other than the global
  scope (eg: something like an informational recommendation on how
  to do SSM within 239/8)

- A nice application side solution (standard, + freely available implementation)
  to emulate ASM on top of SSM. The final goal for that would be something like:
  put that emulation into OS kernels so that ASM applications do not need
  to be modified.

- Finalization of all open drafts into RFCs so that anybody working
  on actual standards basedd application solutions can start to use SSM.
  Hint: Standards based application solutions tend to NOT refer to
  any technologies unless they are specified in finalized documents,
  eg: RFCs (see discussions in DVB or other application organizations -
  if that's how it can be called).

Development:

- Lots of key implementations:
  - IGMPv3 support in switches, both basic and full IGMPv3 snooping
    (basic is a term i use for per-MAC address filtering, whereas
     full IGMPv3 snooping does per (S,G) IP address filtering).
  - IGMPv3 host stacks: MacOS, Set Top Boxes, Solaris
  - Any commercial applications beside WIndows Media and IP/TV
    (what other commercial applications support SSM ?) No EPG software
    in STBs supports SSM, 
  - Implementations of IGMPv3 router side in router vendors
    other than C,J,P - does N support it ? How about E and F ? ...

Deployment wise (as i define deployment):
  - Waiting for more than 40% of users to migrate to OSs supporting 
    IGMPV3/SSM.
  - Persuading enterprise networks to consistently upgrade edge routers
    to enable IGMPv3.

And this all does not cover transition solutions that may be necessary
to move forwards faster than being blocked on any of these problems.

Cheers
	Toerless

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

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:24:53 -0700

Technologies:

Standards:

Development:

Cheers
	Toerless

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:06:18 +0200 (CEST)

Well, it sounds like there is a long road before the SSM internet really
happend. But I dont really agree with all these points because they
mix different prob. together.

> - Source redundancy solutions for SSM channels.

Not really required for SSM deployment, I see it as an SSM "enhancement".
As a normal user, I do not need to have redundant node at home.

>   SDP source filter extensions). Finalization of RTCP for SSM solutions.

This is an application problem, is really the network waiting for
application/session protocols to SSM aware ? If MMUSIC is waiting for
the network to be SSM too , we are in big trouble (see Chicken && egg)

>   scope (eg: something like an informational recommendation on how

I want SSM, and I want it all over the Internet. In my mind, scoping
is another SSM "enhancement".

>   put that emulation into OS kernels so that ASM applications do not need

I agree.  But will the typical application/middleware writer wait or not
for the SSM to be deployed before writing this emulation part ? Again,
this is needed, but right now, this is not needed for SSM deployment in
the network.

>   if that's how it can be called).

Igmpv3 is implemented in the most used operating system in the world.
SSM is implemented in the most used IP routers in the world. Again, If
applications writers are waiting for the network to be SSM and the network
is waiting for the applications, we can wait a long long time before
something happens.

>      full IGMPv3 snooping does per (S,G) IP address filtering).

Right. But is igmpv3 snooping a major deployment obstacle for SSM ? if
it is really the case, it's and "Multicast Last Mile" Prob. and do not
prevent the backbone to be "SSM".

>   - IGMPv3 host stacks: MacOS, Set Top Boxes, Solaris

I really do not agree again. Are we all waiting  for the magic point of
deployment and say : "Is everybody ready ? OK tomorrow we will switch the
Internet and it will be SSM" I think that we need a deployment plan
exactly as in IPv6, not only concerning the Last mile but concerning
Internet.

>     (what other commercial applications support SSM ?) No EPG software

Same as above, it's an application pb. not an network pb.

>   - Persuading enterprise networks to consistently upgrade edge routers

The network do not have to wait for user to put new service into it. The
pb is that these 40% of users do not know what multicast over IP is.
Entreprise networks are generally on the edge of Internet.

> to move forwards faster than being blocked on any of these problems.

OK. So, Is the Internet core backbone SSM enabled ?

Hoerdt Mickaël

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:06:18 +0200 (CEST)

Hoerdt Mickaël

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:04:24 -0700

> mix different prob. together.

Please be more specific. Sure, it's a laundry list, sure you can get
lots of SSM deployments with just some of these points being tackled,
but if you want to have all applications that could use SSM to actually
be able to use SSM, then you will likely need to tackle all these points.

-- 
Thanks
   Toerless Eckert

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:04:24 -0700

-- 
Thanks
   Toerless Eckert

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:36:04 -0400

> Igmpv3 is implemented in the most used operating system in the world.

I am sorry, but this is simply not true. IGMPv3 is implemented in the most
recent _version_ of the most used operating system. This _version_ has
a deployment in the few per cent range. It will be years before the availability
of IGMPv3 support in the OS (much less applications) can be assumed.

Please do not throw away what has been acheived :

IGMPv2 support is really ubiquitous in the OS.
IGMPv2 support is really ubiquitous in applications.
PIM support is pretty ubiquitous in routers.
There is a substantial body of deployment experience in the Internet and
with ISP's.
There are a substantial number of enterprise uses of multicast.

This level of support has taken a decade to acheive. To get SSM to the same
level IMHO will take another decade.

Multicast deployment at present is maybe 100x's as extensive as IPv6. To say
that SSM should replace ASM sends the wrong message. To say that SSM will
complement ASM and simplify xSM deployment is a much better message. 

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:36:04 -0400

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:43:42 +0300 (EEST)

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Multicast deployment at present is maybe 100x's as extensive as IPv6. 

I'm not sure if I agre here..

> To say

.. but this I completely agree with.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:43:42 +0300 (EEST)

---

From: Jon Zeeff <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:31:08 -0400

Here are some of the things we are working on SSM wise:

1) An automatic multicast tunnel that supports IGMPv3 and SSM.  You load 
client software on to
a Windows box and it automatically tunnels off to a Linux server to receive 
multicast via
unicast.  Hopefully this will encourage SSM adoption.  More info at 
http://www.internet2.edu/~admytren

2) Use of SSM here is held up by the lack of IP Router Alert option in IGMP 
packets from
our Juniper router.  Apparently this causes Windows XP to ignore the packets.

---

From: Jon Zeeff <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:31:08 -0400