Re: can ssm and non-ssm colide ?

["Lee, Jiwoong" <porce@kaist.ac.kr>]

Good points.
Well-categorized names will be good.
BTW ISM(or whatever) and SSM belong to explicit multicast and explicit
multicast
is just one (efficient) way to realize multicast. Therefore, number of soure
might not
be a good discriminant in a wide view.

The name ISM surely is misleadeing.

"Generic multicast" was a my alternative to call *ISM*, though I don't
recommend to use it.

Jiwoong



----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Luby" <luby@digitalfountain.com>
To: "Ross Finlayson" <finlayson@live.com>; "Jaiwant Mulik"
<jmulik@unix.temple.edu>
Cc: <ssm-interest@external.cisco.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 3:16 AM
Subject: RE: can ssm and non-ssm colide ?


> Ross,
> I feel and have felt for some time the same way about the naming of ISM.
It
> isn't symmetric with the naming of SSM, and does give the impression that
> one is a standard and the other is something else.  I like your suggestion
> of calling the original model of multicast SIM instead of ISM, it seems to
> be the perfect name!
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Finlayson [mailto:finlayson@live.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 4:27 PM
> To: Jaiwant Mulik
> Cc: ssm-interest@external.cisco.com
> Subject: Re: can ssm and non-ssm colide ?
>
>
> At 12:18 PM 11/23/00, Jaiwant Mulik wrote:
> >What again is ISM (I know SSM) ?
>
> The term "ISM" ("Internet Standard Multicast") describes the current IP
> multicast model, in which joins are done to multicast group addresses
only,
> and packets are received regardless of the sender.
>
> By the way, I have to say that I dislike the term "ISM".  It's misleading,
> because SSM is likely to also be a standard someday.
>
> Instead, I'd like to suggest the term "Source-Independent Multicast"
> ("SIM").  This is not only more descriptive, but also more contrasts
better
> with "Source-Specific Multicast".
>
>          Ross.
>
>
>