The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

[gja@thumper.bellcore.com]

Andy,
Andy,

	[..]
>>2. If yes, do people feel it is OK to have link-layer-specific
>>   multicasting solutions?  Or carried to an extreme, one solution for
>>   ATM Forum UNI 3.0, a second for 3.1, a third for 4.0, and so on,
>>   ATM Forum UNI 3.0, a second for 3.1, a third for 4.0, and so on,
>>   given that they each provide different ATM multicasting capabilities?
>>   given that they each provide different ATM multicasting capabilities?

I think this comes under the heading of "will the link layer exist
by the time the standard appears?", or "lets make a standard that
helps people solve the problem that exists, then update it
as technology reaches the marketplace".

>>3. Are there any volunteers out there to work on a draft (or drafts)
>>3. Are there any volunteers out there to work on a draft (or drafts)
>>   on how to optimize IPv4 [and, for the future, IPng] multicast flows
>>   over link layers that support their own multicasting facilities?
>>   Again, this would concentrate on the case where the link layer net
>>   Again, this would concentrate on the case where the link layer net
>>   has an arbitrary IP topology overlay; groups like ip-atm will work
>>   on the one-one case (one such draft has already appeared on the
>>   ip-atm list).

I can't speak for the rolc scope really, but I'm hoping to have
written up a draft for 'modified rfc1112' IPmc over UNI 3.0 in the
next week. This will focus on the rfc1577 'classical' LIS model.
Depending on how this goes I may have time to get involved with
the more general rolc case.

gja