The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

[hiroshi@ctr.columbia.edu (Hiroshi Esaki)]

Curtis, 

 > I think it will be impossible to force that ALL applications 
 > can not use broadcast into LIS. 
 > Once some application has to use broadcast, there may be three solutions. 
 > 
 >   i) we do not support such a application

 cv> It is not inconcievable to have a host that does not support a
 cv> particular application that relies on broadcast (netBIOS or Lotus
 cv> Notes come to mind or even unmodified bootp) yet sits on a LIS that
 cv> does.
 cv> Ideally any protocol would use a multicast to reach only those hosts
 cv> that are running the protocol.  There may be a set of protocols that
 cv> continue to use broadcast.  It may be common, particularly when all
 cv> but the most baroque have been converted, for hosts not to participate
 cv> in any of the protocols still using broadcast.

By my stupid understanding, there are two way to multicast the message 
to the entities who use the same protocol, WITHOUT prior address knowledge
in the client application. 
The network has infomation of members associated with every 
protocol to establish every multicast connection.  This information 
will be (1) registered by the client or be (2) statistically configureed by 
the system operator. 
In order to use (1), we must have a well-known registration server(s)
address, and redistration server must maintion address information for 
EVERY protocol.  
  I should say this approach will be possibly work, while having no 
network/host specific address information.
  But, having a broadcast channel (this could be small bandwidth and 
could be unnecessary to provide a so reliable data delivery service) 
will be much easier, if the provision of boradcast service for LIS 
is not hard to provide. 


Many cleaver applications/host will not frequently use multicast/broadcast  
service. Then, why the provision of broadcast will be hard compared to 
the provision of muticast service ? 


Regards, 

Hiroshi Esaki