<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/11/19 6:57 PM, William Herrin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP-guGUGPp4YmkJuhEPjS6RbLCjYDn6U7+FHuMm6j-8aN93k0w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:25 PM Michael Thomas
<<a href="mailto:mike@mtcc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">mike@mtcc.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> This entire thing strikes me as a horrible layering
violation. Why on<br>
> earth should alerts be required to dogleg through content
providers? </div>
<div dir="ltr">><br>
> It seems to me that it would be much better to use the
standards we<br>
> already have to deliver text, voice and video, and just
make it a<br>
> requirement that some list of devices must be able to
listen for these<br>
> announcements and act accordingly. </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Hi Mike,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What;'s the plan then? Establish a multicast path
throughout my backbone for the emergency alert messages
and pray none of them loop back in to my system to
create a storm? If my $30 home firewall receives a
multicast message on the proper port it should
rebroadcast it inside? What could go wrong!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Wide area multicast sucks dude. That's why we have
video dogleg its way through content delivery networks
in the first place.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>While multicast would be advantageous, it's hardly required.
Brute force and ignorance (= unicast) would work too.</p>
<p>And yeah, maybe you need to alert all of the "viewable" devices
unless you have some way of detecting what I'm paying attention
to.</p>
<p>Mike<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>