Re: Auto-tunnel Rant

[Bill Nickless <nickless@mcs.anl.gov>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 01:51 AM 3/22/2001 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>    I think that the promotion of auto-tunnels for the purpose of
>furthering multicast deployment is WRONG. It is, IMHO, NOT productive to
>expend time and effort in this direction. It diverts resources from the 
>real goal, which is multicast deployment. If deployed, it will cause 
>problems that will be inevitably be blamed on multicast.

As I've been playing Multicast Bully, one of the hardest things I've had to 
do is to get people who think they've got a working multicast deployment to 
fix it.  (Fix it means MSDP/PIM-SM/MBGP).  These are usually people who 
have a DVMRP tunnel off to a service provider.  I've also seen situations 
where an organization has their service provider run a PIM RP.

Adding another set of non-BCP multicast deployment options using these 
auto-tunneling procedures will inevitably increase the problem space.  I'm 
already having to ask people why their MSDP SA advertisements are coming 
from an RP in an unrelated university in another state (probably because of 
old dense mode connections).

If we need tunnels to get around broken service providers, let's do them 
explicitly so that we know where they are and can take them out when clues 
get appropriately spread out.
===
Bill Nickless    http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/nickless      +1 630 252 7390
PGP:0E 0F 16 80 C5 B1 69 52 E1 44 1A A5 0E 1B 74 F7     nickless@mcs.anl.gov

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQCVAwUBOroznKwgm7ipJDXBAQF5mQP/bzFA6JtxA3S1EgMlNCjDglOCjQTSTWNl
BS+WOU1VWM0YWwTYYi+WyTV9yeapaHBrESk4eCYbqi+9DHKVxNqemPcWM+91+hwB
wL1zvdeQHhxY5hnPgfv+DabpAVctSDrI9+jUHtfWuzUMwn5rCOH5FNPczbL/26a+
4g6IRVYpGRA=
=p0yN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----