Isnt SSM just a particular case of PIM??
It is the specifications for just specific sources but they arent adressing
the multicast in general.
am I right ?
Jon Crowcroft wrote:
In message <3AA60C4B(_dot_)58AA4CFC(_at_)irisa(_dot_)fr>, Ali Boudani typed:
>>First the CBT protocol was created to use shared tree solutions because
>>DVMRP and the other dense mode protocols werent scalable. there were
>>many problems with CBT (which is bidirectional) so PIM-SM was cretaed
>>which provide some switching (between shared tree and source tree). and
>>after that there is some discussions about the bidirectional PIM, which
>>is like CBT.
>>Are we in circle here or what ??
not really. the mainstream current multicast action is concentrating on
single source (and on single source reliable multicast transport)
since we didn't feel we understood all the complications of ANY of the
multiple source schemes for IP or reliable....(e.g. interdomain
routing, and multiple source semantics for reliable) -
there were'nt really "problems" with CBT apart from we never managed
to get a router vendor to committ to an implmenetation which we could
deploy and learn from - tony ballardie got a lot of the details out,
but the two implementaions i know of never saw light of day.....bidir
pim is cool, bgmp is cool, but action in implementation/details/spec
is waiting on getting the PIM SSM stuff completely shaken down....
its all part of a good learning experience and (as any good s/w
engineer might say) its the norm:-)