Subject: [pim] Trail Dry Run (for RFC4601 deployment and implementation survey) - Please participate. Thanks!

From: Vero Zheng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 01:59:24 +0000

Dear WG,

This email start a trail dry run for the RFC4601 deployment and implementation survey in this mailing list.
This dry run will last for one week, please participate. This will help us to make sure the survey functions before we start to send it to wider audience.

Marshall Eubanks has agreed to anonymize the response to this Questionnaire. Please send your Questionnaire responses to his email address, [email-masked].
Marshall requests that such responses include the string "RFC 4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject field.

The Questionnaire is attached in blue.

Thanks for your participation and help in advance.

BR,
Rishabh, Jeffrey & Vero

Questionnaire

Introduction:

PIM-SM was first published as RFC 2117 in 1997 and then again as
RFC 2362 in 1998.  The protocol was classified as Experimental in
both of these documents.  The PIM-SM protocol specification was
then rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as
RFC 4601 in 2006. Considering the multiple independent
implementations developed and the successful operational
experience gained, the IETF has decided to advance the PIM-SM
routing protocol to Draft Standard.  This survey intends to
provide supporting documentation to advance the Protocol
Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing protocol
from IETF Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. (Due to RFC 6410,
now the intention is to progress it to Internet Standard.  Draft Standard
is not used anymore.)

This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group.

The responses will be collected by neutral third-party and kept
strictly confidential; only the final combined results will be
published.  Marshall Eubanks has agreed to anonymize the response
to this Questionnaire.  Marshall has a long experience with
Multicast but has no direct financial interest in this matter,
nor ties to any of the vendors involved.  He is also a member of
the IAOC, Chair of the IETF Trust and co-chair of the IETF
Layer 3 VPN Working Group.  Please send Questionnaire responses
to his email address, [email-masked].  He requests
that such responses include the string "RFC 4601 bis Questionnaire"
in the subject field.

Questions for operators:

1       Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network?

2       How long have you had PIM-SM deployed in your network?
        Do you know if your deployment is based on the most recent
        RFC4601?

3       Have you deployed PIM-SM for IPv6 in your network?

4       Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) PIM-SM
        implementations for your deployment?

5       Have you encountered any inter-operability or backward-
        compatibility issues amongst differing implementations?
        If yes, what are your concerns about these issues?

6       Have you deployed both dense mode and sparse mode in your
        network?

        If yes, do you route between these modes using features such
        as *,*,RP or PMBR?

7       To what extent have you deployed PIM functionality, like BSR,
        SSM, and Explicit Tracking?

8       Which RP mapping mechanism do you use: Static, AutoRP, or BSR?

9       How many RPs have you deployed in your network?

10      If you use Anycast-RP, is it Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446)
        or Anycast-RP using PIM (RFC 4610)?

11      Do you have any other comments on PIM-SM deployment in your
        network?

Questions for implementers:

1       Have you implemented PIM-SM?

2       Is the PIM-SM implementation based on RFC 2632 or RFC 4601?

3       Have you implemented (*,*, RP) state of RFC 4601? What is the
        rationale behind implementing or omitting (*,*,RP)?

4       Have you implemented the PMBR as specified in RFC 4601 and
        RFC 2715?
        What is the rationale behind implementing or omitting PMBR?

5       Have you implemented other features and functions of RFC 4601:
                - SSM
                - Join Suppression
                - Explicit tracking
                - Register mechanism
                - SPT switchover at last-hop router
                - Assert mechanism
                - Hashing of group to RP mappings

6       Does your PIM-SM implementation support IPv6?

7       Have you encountered any inter-operability issues with other
        PIM implementations in trials or in the field?

8       Do you have any other comments or concerns about PIM-SM as
        specified in RFC4601?