Re: Technical issue to think about on SM-interest mailing list

[Jon Crowcroft <J.Crowcroft@cs.ucl.ac.uk>]

 >>Anwyay, here's a 1/4-baked idea for a more flexible way of allowing multiple
 
 >>multicast
 >>protocols to coexist in the Internet. Merely have the two protocols
 >>operating in parallel and then have gateways interconnect the trees.
 >>For instance, to connect DVMRP and SM, you might have two ways of joining
 >>the group. DVMRP endnode and routers would join G1. SM endnodes would join
 >>(C, G2). You'd need to have a bilingual node join both groups and pass
 >>traffic from one to the other. 

yes, the basic requirement for interworking is a bi-lingual node - but
of course in multicast and esp. in SM we have several problems - the
first is the address space - nearly the same as the ipv6 problem....you can't 
get 64 into 32....

luckily, we can always do tunnels from 32 bit areas into SM
regions....without even needing ip in ip tunnels since we have 
an SM shim header now....but we need a host independent core
assignment system for deering only hosts/regions.....

we also have

1/ sm v. deering only hosts - for deerging only hosts in an sm region
we need to emulate pim...first hop sm router acts on behalf of
host...
2/ sm regions v. deering regions se above for tunnels
3/ sm node in deering region and vice versa - ditto

and so on....

the critical thing is to start to define a functional unit that does
(C,G) management, that is normally in an end system, but can move to a
router or to a border as needed...

j.