mirror of
https://git.proxmox.com/git/mirror_frr
synced 2025-11-01 01:46:16 +00:00
pimd: Start cleanup of documentation
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
405d63578a
commit
1145d0256e
32
pimd/WHY_SSM
32
pimd/WHY_SSM
@ -1,32 +0,0 @@
|
||||
WHY SSM
|
||||
|
||||
Benefis of PIM SSM over PIM SM
|
||||
------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
- SSM consumes minimum link bandwidth
|
||||
- SSM simplifies multicast address management (specially important for
|
||||
inter-domain multicast)
|
||||
- SSM (S,G) channels easily provide unique per-application addressing
|
||||
- SSM does not require MSDP between PIM domains
|
||||
- SSM does not suffer instabilities from traffic-driven SPT switchover
|
||||
- SSM is not suscetible to DoS attack from unwanted sources
|
||||
- SSM does not use RP. Some RP issues:
|
||||
- RP is possible point of failure
|
||||
- RP demands redundancy management
|
||||
- RP may require PIM dense mode support for RP election
|
||||
- RP is possible performance bottleneck
|
||||
- RP may demand lots of extra management
|
||||
- SSM can be deployed in an existing PIM SM network (only the last hop
|
||||
routers need to support IGMPv3)
|
||||
- SSM is easier to deploy and maintain
|
||||
|
||||
PIM-SSM drawbacks
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
- SSM requires IGMPv3 support on both receivers and last-hop routers
|
||||
- SSM may be memory intensive when managing (S,G) states for
|
||||
many-to-many multicast distribution
|
||||
- SSM will keep (S,G) state as long as there are subscriptions from
|
||||
receivers, even if the source is not actually sending traffic
|
||||
|
||||
--EOF--
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user