[zeromq-dev] PGM multicast

tradermbox-zmq at yahoo.com tradermbox-zmq at yahoo.com
Tue May 11 13:32:22 CEST 2010

can we clarify one point.

at the moment with ZMQ-2.0.6, can we run udp (such as udp://eth0.... as a connection address) or we must run epgm://eht0... since i dont think that i can using PGM. Furthermore, is it right to say that EPGM is the protocol using OpenPGM software implementation but PGM is more of a native protocol? 

BTW I have tried the new release and do not see much difference. I am still seeing dropped packets (BTW i am testing subscriber and publisher on the same box..)


From: Steven McCoy <steven.mccoy at miru.hk>
To: 0MQ development list <zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org>
Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 4:15:19 AM
Subject: Re: [zeromq-dev] PGM multicast

On 11 May 2010 16:04, Martin Sustrik <sustrik at 250bpm.com> wrote:

>tradermbox-zmq at yahoo.com wrote:
>> would you say that the only stable transports are tcp and inproc? and
>>> epgm is questionable?
>Steven should comment on the stability status of OpenPGM.
>>However, it should be noted that multicast transports are inherently
>>complex to set up and are often fail due to inadequate networking
>>hardware, incorrect HW/OS setup etc.

For example my Alteon is dropping any packet with IP Router Alert (RFC 2113) enabled but my HP ProCurve is handling it fine.  Due to this it will now be a configurable option, similar to SmartPGM.  By default it is disabled, as with version 1 and 2.

UDP/PGM is always more stable given non-conducive network infrastructure

There are no known issues with OpenPGM 2.1.26 aside of unsupported PGM extensions: FEC, Polling, Congestion Control, designated local repairs, and back-off interval auto-tuning.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20100511/91357568/attachment.htm>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list