Talk:SMART Multicast
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Experimental routing protocols[edit]
It's been 10 years that the IETF has been working to achieve the goal of a secure reliable IP Multicast. The article speaks to a proposal at the November 2006 MBONED IEFF working group. Seperate proposals for secure IP Multicast and reliable IP Multicast have been made, however no other proposed protocols are both reliable and secure. TODO: Cover other proposed secure/reliable multicast protocols as they appear. --Hulkeypoo 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This is pretty weird stuff, as the reason for tying up reliability and security in one protocol is not given. Protocols such as NORM work fine on IPsec. Is this specific protocol alive? Noteworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.117.95 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Previous TODO: No new secure/reliable protocol standards proposed. RE Research ongoing: Reliability and Security in IP Multicast are accomplished at the same network nodes. In IP Multicast end-to-end security like IPSEC fails to protect the Multicast backbone. NORM contains no specification for security and has one implementation by a .mil. The .mil NORM user manual states --- A minimal example norm sender command-line syntax is: norm addr <addr/port> sendFile <fileName> --- The .mil NORM implementation functions like Multicast FTP. Further research yields no commercial implementations of NORM. Because there is no security mechanism in the NORM RFC, NORM is excluded as NORM is irrelevant to secure/reliable IP Multicast. SMART Multicast has reported adoption in US cable and University systems. TODO: find examples of SMART adoption and research and post motivations for security and reliability to be accomplished at the same nodes (beyond the obvious). Hulkeypoo (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)