Subject: Re: stockholm.mbone

From: Gunnar Lindberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:05:14 +0200 (MET DST)

Someone noted that stockholm.mbone.ebone.net(?) was down.

>>>It's been restarted (yes, it will be upgraded..).

>>Any plans for native multicast over D-GIX? Might help...

>The D-GIX is across a gigaswitch which could have a problem with too
>much multicast-traffic. We've discuss how to do it now and then but
>haven't decided yet.

Isn't there kind of a problem doing that?

    1)	The rules for the D-GIX specifies that you may not use a
	routing protocol that uses multicast or brodcast :-) :-).
	(http://www.netnod.se/rules.html).
    
    2)	A more serious question is what multicast routing protocol
	you should/would use? At the Munich IDR session (it became
	kind of an IDR+IDMR session) David Meyer presented a good
	example why we need a policy based multicast protocol.

	http://www.antc.uoregon.edu/IETF/Munich97/IDR

	As far as I could follow, the bottom line was that an ISP
	that uses native multicast himself can find he's doing
	transit for multicast traffic in unintended ways or that
	multicast may be sent out so that customers will drop it
	due to (erronous) RPF checks. Sounds no good to me.

Or is BGP4+, with multicast, available on our favourite routers?

	Gunnar Lindberg

---

From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:13:22 +0300 (EEST)

> Or is BGP4+, with multicast, available on our favourite routers?
No, but we could do PIM-DM + DVMRP routing if that would not kill the
Gigaswitch (I've no idea if it would do that or not)

That would be an interim step before we'll get real solutions from our
favourite vendors.

Pete