Re: [pim] Replacing unicast BSMs with multicast

["Christopher Thomas Brown" <ctbrown at nexthop.com>]

Stig Venaas wrote:

> Ignoring the backwards compatibility, I believe using multicast is a far 
> better solution, and I would like to make a good choice for the future 
> (something we may need to live with for many many years to come). 
> Regarding backwards compatibility, it's useful to see how many have 
> implemented it, so we know how big an issue it is, and also consider how 
> bad or well it still can work if you mix implementations (as I tried to 
> do in the first paragraph above).

I agree that multicast is a better solution.

Unicast BSMs are implemented in our routing software.

> It would be nice to get input from more people that have implemented it. 

In my experience, it is not difficult to support unicast BSMs in the BSR
mechanism.

If the BSR specification switched to multicast BSMs for this senario we
would be likely to support it and also to support unicast BSMs as a
configuration option.

Chris

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim