Multicast Routing over ATM
draft-crawley-mcast-rout-over-atm-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Eric S. Crawley | ||
| Last updated | 1996-02-23 | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
As the use of IP multicasting and Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) technologies increases, it becomes important to think about ways that IP multicast routing protocols interface to ATM networks. The Multicast Address Resolution Server (MARS) [1] addresses the problem of determining group membership within a single ATM Logical IP Subnet (LIS) and provides a mapping between IP multicast addresses and ATM addresses while [2] looks at the issues of short cut routing for PIM Sparse Mode and CBT. In this document, the general problems of IP multicast routing protocols over ATM networks are explored and the issues related to the different forms of multicast routing protocols; dense vs. sparse, shared tree vs. source tree, etc. are addressed. Additionally, the issues related to short cut and QoS routing are discussed. This document is intended as a starting point for exploring the issues of IP multicast routing over ATM.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)