Subject: Re: Friday AM: mrouters still sending bogus registers

From: John Hawkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 15:14:56 -0400 (EDT)

> Many thanks, for your clarification of the nature of the problem.  I will
> download a later version of the IOS from Cisco and load it onto the
> router in a short while.  In the meantime, I will disable the tunnel
> here, since I have heard back from the customer that I though was needing
> it, and he will not need it until Sun/Mon.

Good.

> I do have to disagree with your point that everyone who uses MBONE should
> be on the MBONE mailing list.  By your argument, anyone using TCP/IP
> should be a member of the IETF, and anyone using the Web should be
> on the HTTP mailing list.

Sorry, you're flat out wrong here. I've re-cc-ed [email-masked].

The MBone is not a production service, it is a cooperative experiment,
and it is a relatively fragile thing. [[ Though arguably if it were a
production service it would _more_ necessary, not _less_ necessary,
that everyone pay attention. ]]

It is far easier in the multicast world to break everyone else's
network than it is in the unicast world; your comparison of the MBone
to TCP/IP misses this point, and is analagous to comparing apples to
oranges.

Perhaps a better example would be an north american ISP who does
not read the NANOG mailing list, but again, unicast packet delivery
is far less fragile than multicast (whether unicast routing
is more or less fragile than multicast routing is debatable...).

> (By the way, I used th read mbone@isi, but I found that the S/N
> level became too low, so I quit.)

As I suspected. This sort of thing lends more credence to the
supposition that mbone-na needs an equivalent of mbone-eu-op.

--jhawk