Re: Auto-tunnel Rant

[Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 02:02:28PM -0600, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> At 01:23 PM 3/22/01, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >We have native multicast (almost) everywhere
> >and available to customers.  I do not like the idea of my routers
> >doing auto tunnels across my customers network to their downstream
> >customer.
> 
> If your downstream ISP customers don't support native multicast (even 
> though you do), then they will be multi-unicasting across your network in 
> any case.  If this multi-unicasting happens to be using a tunneling 
> protocol, and you just choose to ignore this, then it will make no 
> difference to you.  It'll be basically the same[*] traffic either way.
> 
> However, if your downstream customers *are* using an automatic tunneling 
> protocol, then you - as an upstream provider - now have the *choice* of 
> reducing this traffic by inserting your own tunneling server(s) into the 
> stream.  But it's your choice.  If you don't want to worry about this, then 
> you don't have to do anything.

	I'd rather my customers configure native multicast as we have
this service available.  I'd like to educate my customers to the point
that they can turn on pim on their routers and avoid this tunneling.
I don't want to have my routers send tunnels to the customer network
when if they request/properly configure they can have native multicast.

> >   They need to be educated and become more savvy in their
> >operations.
> 
> Yes, we all agree that this is the ideal solution.  I wish you continued 
> success in educating your downstream ISP customers :-)

	I think they don't know it's available, or there's not sufficent
edge demand that they are requesting multicast.

	- Jared

> [*] This assumes that if your non-native-multicast-enabled downstream 
> customers don't have multicast tunneling available, then they will just 
> send/receive plain UDP unicast packets instead.  One could argue, however, 
> that if they don't have the ability to do multicast tunneling, then they 
> will use TCP instead, or just throw up their hands and do nothing.
> 
> This, I think, is a better argument to make regarding the possible use of 
> automatic multicast tunneling by your downstream customers.  You might 
> argue that multicast tunneling would lead to an increase of *UDP* traffic 
> across your network, and that this might be something you decide to be 
> concerned about.
> 
>          Ross.

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.