mailing list archives
Re: IPTV and ASM
From: Mark Tinka <mtinka () globaltransit net>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:00:21 +0800
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 routers punt all registers to CPU and them forward
them in SW.
Our Sender PE routers double as our RP's. These are Juniper
M320's and T320's today.
Yes, a Tunnel PIC is required on the Juniper's (although you
might find it interesting that if you're running PIM-SM for
IPv6 on Sender PE routers, you don't need a Tunnel PIC;
however, if you have an IPv6-based RP, you need a Tunnel
Juniper MX routers don't require a Tunnel PIC, as those are
integrated into their DPC and MPC line cards.
Our customer is using Cisco ASR1000 routers as Sender CE
routers, and PIM Registers are encapsulated/decapsulated in
hardware on those platforms.
But I do agree that it does add overhead.
In fact there was a draft which proposed using MPLS
encapsulation in networks that support MPLS to replace
the existing RP mechanism.
This quite interesting, I hadn't heard of this one before,
although I'd always wondered why something like this wasn't
My main issue with this proposal is that if the Sender CE
router is not part of your network, i.e., your customer, a
partner network, e.t.c., it requires that your MPLS domain
be extended toward them. It's not impossible, but not
Also, it would be good to support both LDP and RSVP, and not
Maybe I should contact the author to see if the project can
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: IPTV and ASM Antonio Querubin (Dec 29)
Re: IPTV and ASM Mark Tinka (Dec 29)