home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!src.honeywell.com!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!tbooth
- From: tbooth@netcom.com (Todd Booth)
- Subject: Re: Multicast Routers (was Re: NIS broadcasts over IP subnets)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov20.065733.24664@netcom.com>
- Organization: Wellfleet Communications, Inc
- References: <1992Nov17.142856.19947@ccsun.strath.ac.uk> <1992Nov19.151355.20000@netcom.com> <sii7sjk@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:57:33 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) writes:
-
- >...
- >As far as I can tell, the router vendors have been dragging their feet
- >vigorously on any kind of multicast routing for at least 4 years. The
- >router vendors have shown more enthusiasm for PPP, despite the danger
- >PPP represents to their locked-in customer bases.
-
- I can't speak for others, but I get requests for multi-vendor
- interoperability over leased lines over 50 times as often as
- for multicast routing. Are there a lot of people out there
- with requirements for multicast routing? Could anyone quantify
- how many routers would be used for multicast routing? Maybe
- 1 out of 10, 1 out of 1000...?
-
- Assuming it is closer to 1 out of 1000, why not use a high end
- router for the non-multicast and a Sun or whatever for the
- multicast?
-
- PPP allows our customers to use less expensive IPX or IP routers,
- from other vendors, and interoperate with Wellfleet equipment at
- the central site.
-
- I think this newsgroup would tear to shreads any router vendors
- that did not support PPP (at least IP over PPP with static support).
-
- --todd
-