Subject: RE: packet loss between mbone2.UU.Net & SanFrancisco.mci.net

From: Arlie Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:38:13 -0500

Just for the record, I am responsible for one mid-sized ISP
(thepoint.net), and we understand very well the implications of
multicast.  We _want_ to deploy it as fast as we can.  The main
limitations are the lack of enthusiasm from our provider and a lack of
really good support in IOS and Ascend's "OS".

The IOS support is Almost There.  I would really like the ability to
configure a router to advertise static DVMRP routes, and just more
control over the DVMRP routing table in general.

Ascend... I don't even want to talk about.

-- arlie

>----------
>From: 	Jon Crowcroft[SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, February 12, 1997 5:05 AM
>To: 	Henry Kilmer
>Cc: 	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: 	Re: packet loss between mbone2.UU.Net & SanFrancisco.mci.net
>
>all this ISP fear and loathing of multicast is compeltely wrongheaded,
>and based in the  expierence with people running REFLECTORS for things
>like CUSEEME which run OUTSIDE the ISPs control, and DO result in
>traffic multiplication.....multicast in your backbone
>is a traffic DIVIDOR when implemented right.

---

From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:23:01 +0200 (EET)

> control over the DVMRP routing table in general.

I've a good piece of advice. Dump DVMRP.
 > Ascend... I don't even want to talk about.
There is rumor around that Ascend might be able to do IGMP proxying.
Don't know for sure though.

Pete

---

From: "Jeff Young" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:07:43 -0500

While I respect the fact that you are just trying to help, pointing
out that this poor soul should dump DVMRP without telling him why or
what he should substitute for DVMRP (so we can all kibitz over your
shoulder and point out why X protocol is better than Y, less filling,
tastes great, is not, is too, won't crash, won't scale) isn't really 
fair to arlie or to us. 

Jeff Young
[email-masked]

> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:23:01 +0200 (EET)
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
> To: Arlie Davis <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: packet loss between mbone2.UU.Net & SanFrancisco.mci.net
> In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=ThePoint_Interne%l=[email-masked]>
> References: <c=US%a=_%p=ThePoint_Interne%l=[email-masked]>
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Precedence: bulk
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 737
> 
> Arlie Davis writes:

---

From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:13:41 +0200 (EET)

> tastes great, is not, is too, won't crash, won't scale) isn't really 
Ok, maybe I did have too high expectations of the general knowledge
here. I think he should run DVMRP up to some border and run PIM-SM
with Auto-RP within his network to get ease of configuring and better
scaling properties.

Pete