Of course I tried to form a company around the technology but who needs a
system that can comfortably scale to a billion nodes? Lets face it,
nobody is sending out to that many people.
Of course the authors still haven't figured out how to cleanly seperate
the levels of functionality so they can more easily configure
reliability levels.
Oh well.
Yaron
>
> Has anybody read this in detail? It claims to solve
> a VERY interesting (to me) problem...
>
> "MTP/SO: Self-Organizing Multicast", Joerg Ott, C. Bormann, N. Seifert,
> 12/04/1997.
> (54401 bytes)
>
> ftp://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bormann-mtp-so-01.txt
>
> Multiparty cooperative applications have recently received much
> attention, as has
> the multicasting of datagrams in the internet. The internet
> datagram multicasting
> mechanism is not reliable, often requiring a higher level protocol
> to achieve the level
> of reliability required for an application. Much of the extensive
> work on reliable
> multicast protocols has assumed relatively stable groups that need
> to ensure that all
> messages are received by all members of this well-defined group.
> Recently, work
> on loosely coupled teleconferencing has directed attention to a
> class of multicast
> applications that scale up to an extent where this assumption is no
> longer practical.
> An interesting multicast transport protocol is defined in RFC 1301.
> MTP provides
> globally ordered, receiver reliable, rate controlled and atomic
> transfer of messages
> to multiple recipients. A revised, more practical version of MTP,
> the Multicast
> Transport Protocol MTP-2 has been in use for some time.
> Self-Organizing Multicast,
> MTP/SO, uses MTP-2 as a basis and adds spontaneous
> self-organization of the
> members of the group into local regions. Scalability is increased
> by providing
> passive group joining and local retransmission of lost packets.
> This version of the
> document is not yet complete but contains most of the vital parts.
>
> --
> Dan
> http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>