> Step one would probably be a PIM-DM, later on it can be expanded to support
> PIM-SM.
Hmm - is there still a userbase for DM that would warrant supporting it first
from a practical standpoint, or is it simply that it is much easier to code and
lays the groundwork for SM without diverting resources from SM too much?
My only frame of reference is the advanced higher-ed community, where only the
"opt-in" explicit-join paradigm of SM is in use. Flood-and-prune ("opt-out")
is explicitly NOT recommended for use in a production environment at this
point.
RFC2362 has been obsoleted by draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-11.txt, FWIW. Since it's
an expired draft and could well evolve further, I don't know if you would want
to use it - but its the current thinking by the WG:
PIM-SM version 2 was originally specified in RFC 2117, and revised in
RFC 2362. This document is intended to obsolete RFC 2362, and to
correct a number of deficiencies that have been identified with the way
PIM-SM was previously specified. As far as possible, this document
specifies the same protocol as RFC 2362, and only diverges from the
behavior intended by RFC 2362 when the previously specified behavior
was clearly incorrect. Routers implemented according to the
specification in this document will be able to successfully
interoperate with routers implemented according to RFC 2362.
-dd
