[j-nsp] Next Gen MVPN flooding assistance

[Mark Tinka]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:11:50 AM Stefan Fouant 
wrote:

> On the other hand, S-PMSIs definitely make sense where
> receivers are more sparsely distributed and bandwidth
> considerations are paramount so relieving unnecessary
> replication state is desired.

Completely agree.

In our case, if we didn't have the need to have an MPEG 
probe at every Receiver PE router that had interested IPTv 
customers, we certainly wold have gone with S-PMSI's (the 
probe needs to monitor all channels, not just a few). 
Suffice it to say, right now, we don't have any PE routers 
that aren't also Multicast Receiver PE routers.

We can still use S-PMSI's even with the probe everywhere, 
it's just that the point of doing so becomes moot when the 
probes aren't selective in their monitoring of the various 
IPTv streams.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20110920/679fb0ea/attachment.pgp>