RE: 232-Addresses not only for current SSM model

["Doron Rajwan" <doron@BANDWIZ.COM>]

I guess you mean 232/8 (the range 232/24 is 232.0.0.xxx).

I tend to agree that 16M addresses seems a lot. However, keep in mind
that:

1. Reverse-IGMP, or On-Demand Multicast, will cause a server to use a
lot of addresses, about one address per URL per rate. This can be a lot.

2. In order not to have too many Ethernet MAC layer collisions, we
should have some bits in the address field, selected randomly by the
server.

Doron.

____________________________________________________
Doron Rajwan, Chief Technology Officer, Bandwiz Inc.
11 Bareket St. Herzlia 46511 Israel
mailto:doron@bandwiz.com
Office: +972-(9)-9515116, ext. 122
Fax:    +972-(9)-9515117
Cell:   +972-(56)-507799
Home:   +972-(3)-6736614




-----Original Message-----
From: Hummel Heinrich [mailto:Heinrich.Hummel@icn.siemens.de]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:46 PM
To: ssm-interest@external.cisco.com
Subject: 232-Addresses not only for current SSM model 


	Hello,

	The 232/24-address space is reserved for source-specific
multicast. An address G from this address space only uniquly identifies
a multicast channel
	together with a particular source's unicast address S.  

	Application: multicast model according to the SSM WG.

	1) 
	This is really great for many very good reasons.

	2)
	A particular source of unicast address S does not head  2**24
SSM-multicast channels. Therefore, a subrange would do as well.

	3)
	I can imagine further multicast models in the future, which
would be happy to use a 232/24-address, but which
	would use different protocol procedures, protocol messages,
protocol TLVs. 
	Just one example:
	A completely different mulitcast delivery channel could be a
ring. As a matter of fact, a ring needs only about 20 % more hops than a
Dijkstra-tree.
	The information can be sent out in two directions so that in
case of a link failure, each receiver node would get the information at
least once.
	Furthermore, in case of optical networks, the power of light is
preserved in a better way.
	Of course, a ring could be extended to a "tree of rings" or a
"ring of rings".
	 
	 I am quite sure that other folks have further ideas. People do
not stop thinking about multicast just because the SSM work is done.

	For all such reasons: Isn't it  appropriate to reserve a
subrange of the 232/24- address space for SSM?

	Regards,
	Heinrich Hummel
	Siemens AG