> For example Apple products don't support IGMPv3.
Implemented at last in 2011 (!) under OSX Lion, 10 years after Windows XP...
$ sysctl net.inet.igmp.default_version
net.inet.igmp.default_version: 3
On Dec 28, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>> From what I understand, the answer is likely to be "yes" and the
>> reason is likely to be "deployed equipment only
>> supports IGMP v2."
>
> That and numerous clients which don't know anyt
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 08:02:04 AM Keegan Holley
wrote:
> Isn't source discovery and efficiency a big concern for
> ASM? If individual streams are tied to a specific
> source then it's possible to live without some of the
> overhead involved in ASM. Joins go straight to the
> source, tr
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 12:55:31 PM Antonio Querubin
wrote:
> That and numerous clients which don't know anything about
> SSM.
With SSM Mapping, they don't need to.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 07:58:53 AM Glen Kent wrote:
> SSM is also used since we *know* the IP addresses of the
> content servers that are the sources - You dont need
> ASM. I dont think maintaining RP infrastructure is
> trivial. Who wants to deal with register packets, etc.
> Small router
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 07:32:38 AM Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
> To my knowledge in most today's networks even if legacy
> equipment don't support IGMPv3 most likely 1st hop
> router does static translation and SSM upstream.
Yes, SSM Mapping allows for PIM-SSM to be used in a network
where the
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 06:19:14 AM Mike McBride
wrote:
> Agreed. I'm seeking confirmation, from IPTV implementers,
> that non igmpv3 support is the reason for using ASM with
> IPTV. Versus other reasons such as reducing state. Or is
> this a non issue and everyone is using SSM with IPTV?
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 05:50:58 AM Marshall Eubanks
wrote:
> >From what I understand, the answer is likely to be "yes"
> >and the
>
> reason is likely to be "deployed equipment only
> supports IGMP v2."
This is true for us - the broadcaster whose IPTv traffic we
carry supports only IGM
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
From what I understand, the answer is likely to be "yes" and the
reason is likely to be "deployed equipment only
supports IGMP v2."
That and numerous clients which don't know anything about SSM.
Antonio Querubin
e-mail: t...@lavanauts.org
xmpp: a
Isn't source discovery and efficiency a big concern for ASM? If individual
streams are tied to a specific source then it's possible to live without
some of the overhead involved in ASM. Joins go straight to the source,
traffic is disseminated via direct paths instead of being replicated by the
RP
SSM is also used since we *know* the IP addresses of the content
servers that are the sources - You dont need ASM. I dont think
maintaining RP infrastructure is trivial. Who wants to deal with
register packets, etc. Small routers punt all registers to CPU and
them forward them in SW.
In fact there
Mike,
To my knowledge in most today's networks even if legacy equipment don't support
IGMPv3 most likely 1st hop router does static translation and SSM upstream.
The reason not to migrate to SSM is usually - ASM is already there and works
just fine :)
Cost to support RP infrastructure is usually
Marshall,
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Marshall Eubanks
wrote:
> Dear Mike;
>
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Mike McBride wrote:
>> Anyone using ASM (versus SSM) for IPTV? If so why?
>>
>
> From what I understand, the answer is likely to be "yes" and the
> reason is likely to be "deploye
Dear Mike;
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Mike McBride wrote:
> Anyone using ASM (versus SSM) for IPTV? If so why?
>
>From what I understand, the answer is likely to be "yes" and the
reason is likely to be "deployed equipment only
supports IGMP v2."
Regards
Marshall
> thanks,
> mike
>
Anyone using ASM (versus SSM) for IPTV? If so why?
thanks,
mike
15 matches
Mail list logo
