Re: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

[Thomas Morin <thomas.morin at orange-ftgroup.com>]

Hi Ice,

IJsbrand Wijnands :
>
> > For many operators its not "the vendor" but multiple vendors, and  
> > that's
> > why many operators (and apparently other IETF contributors too) see an
> > interest in standardizing one solution, with options where needed, and
> > not multiple profiles.
> 
> In your last email you say "..Misunderstanding: the draft says "MUST"  
> for both PIM-based and BGP-based C-multicast routing."
> 
> How is that going to help you standardizing one solution?

Well, if an operator deploys equipments with compliant implementations
(implementing both BGP-based and PIM-based C-multicast routing), then he
knows that he will be able to activate the alternative it prefers, and
that it will interoperate.

> I also pointed out earlier that the Morin draft does not say which 
> core tree building protocol needs to be used. This also does not help 
> in getting an interoperable solution.

You possibly haven't read last revision.
Based on Eric comments about P-tunnels, the draft know says: "[the
recommandation is that] implementations implement the P2MP variants of
the P2P protocols that they already implement [..]".
Hence, if you have interoperable unicast tunneling techniques, the
recommandation orient implementations to also provide a set of
interoperable unicast tunneling techniques.

You can argue that this doesn't give *guarantees*, but I think we can
agree that it helps getting interoperability and that we can't
realistically do more. Moreover, RFC2547/4364 doesn't do thing much
differently and doesn't mandate either any specific tunneling
technology.

-Thomas