Subject: [pim] PIM survey for implementors (round 2)

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:24:45 -0700

The IETF pim working group is conducting a survey in order to advance
the PIM Sparse Mode spec on the IETF Standards Track, and would like
input from implementors. The survey ends October 24th.

Please note that we did this survey previously with a deadline in July.
But owing to unforeseen circumstances we need to restart this survey.
We are acutely aware that this is an additional burden on the people
who took the time to respond before. We hope that they will re-send
their responses - maybe they are still filed in their sent emails.

Please see below for more information.

thank you,
pim chairs Mike & Stig
----

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 a neutral third-party and kept
strictly confidential; only the final combined results will be
published.  Tim Chown and Bill Atwood have agreed to anonymize the
response to this Questionnaire. They have a long experience with 
multicast but have no direct financial interest in this matter, nor
ties to any of the vendors involved.  Tim is working at University of
Southampton, UK, and he has been active in the IETF for many years,
including the mboned working group, and he is a co-chair of the 6renum
working group.  Bill is at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada, and
he has been an active participant in the IETF pim working group for
over ten years, especially in the area of security.

Please send questionnaire responses addressed to them both. The
addresses are [email-masked] and [email-masked].
Please include the string "RFC 4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject
field.

Before answering the questions, please fill the following background 
information.

Name of the Respondent:
Affiliation/Organization:
Contact Email:
Provide description of PIM implementation:
Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential:

Questions:

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?