Subject: RE: How to get multi-homed ATM/Ethernet sparcs talking?

From: Arlie Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:43:12 -0500

No, this won't work, because mrouted is running with the local, physical
interface disabled.  Yes, mrouted will run, but it will not route
between the local physical interface and any multicast-capable virtual
interface (tunnel).  When applications run, they can only use physical
interfaces.  Packets will be delivered to the applications, nor will the
applications ever be able to send across the tunnel.

-- arlie

>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Dave Thaler [SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent:	Thursday, February 06, 1997 11:06 AM
>To:	[email-masked]
>Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject:	Re: How to get multi-homed ATM/Ethernet sparcs talking?
>
>Although it's not a particularly nice solution, another workaround
>is to configure a second tunnel to another one of your machines which
>isn't on the same subnet, and which _doesn't_ run mrouted.  That
>tunnel will of course always be down, and it will periodically try
>to see if it's up, but at least mrouted will function with one active
>tunnel...
>
>-Dave

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:11:46 +0100 (MET)

> > Right, what would you consider to be an acceptable maximum multicast
> > packet rate on a 10 Mbps ethernet ?
> 
> Why does there have to be one?  I'd say 10Mbps is the hard limit.
> 
> What's the acceptable maximum NFS packet rate on a 10Mbps ethernet?
> How is NFS any different from multicast?  Both can eat up large
> amounts of bandwidth while serving their users.  If performance
> becomes a problem, you engineer to fix it; if not, you don't worry
> about it.  An obvious easy fix is 100mbit ethernet to the places
> that need it.

Problem is that people put much money into switches and they buy them no
throughput improvement on multicast, so they blame multicast for doin
wrong and want to ban it.