Static Multicast
draft-ohta-static-multicast-02
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jon Crowcroft , Dr. Masataka Ohta | ||
| Last updated | 1999-07-02 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The current IP Multicast model appears to achieve a level of simplicity by extending the IP unicast addressing model (historically the classful A,B, and C net numbers) from the mask and longest match schemes of CIDR, with a new classful address space, class D. The routing systems have been also built in a deceptively simple way in one of three manners - either broadcast and prune (DVMRP, Dense Mode PIM), destination list based tree computation (MOSPF) or single centered trees (current sparse mode PIM and CBT). The multicast service creates the illusion of a spectrum that one can 'tune in to', as an application writer. Due to this view, many have seen the multicast pilot service, the Mbone, as a worldwide Ethernet, where simple distributed algorithms can be used to allocate 'wavelengths' and advertise them through 'broadcast' on a channel (the session directory), associated with a spectrum.
Authors
Jon Crowcroft
Dr. Masataka Ohta
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)