Subject: Re: SSM

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:57:28 -0400

Dear Hitesh;

(I deleted the inappropriate msdp cc.)  

SSM could be a separate tranport protocol. However,
it was implemented as a subset of PIM-SM. SSM as
implemented is basically PIM-SM with

- IGMP v3 support at the edges
- filtering out or ignoring of (*,G) and (S,G,RPT)
joins, leaves in the core.

The new PIM-SMv2 draft makes this clear - see

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-03.ps or
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-03.txt

in fact, to the extent that there IS no separate SSM transport
protocol draft.

Regards
Marshall

>hi,
>
>ssm makes use of source based trees and so is fundamentally closer to dense

>mode protocols...why then is it said to be closer to pim-sm which makes use

>of shared trees..some even call it a subset of pim-sm (ism )..
>
>rgds
>hitesh
>
>>From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
>>To: [email-masked]
>>CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>>Subject: Re: directly connected sources
>>Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 12:35:06 -0700
>>
>>
>>Tom,
>>
>>The current wording is:
>>
>>    When an RP in a PIM-SM domain first learns of a new sender, e.g. via
>>    PIM register messages, it constructs a "Source-Active" (SA) message
>>    and sends it to its MSDP peers.
>>
>>Would it be sufficient to add "or if it is the DR for a directly connected

>>source" to the "e.g."?
>>
>>   Bill
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Marshall Eubanks

[email-masked]