Subject: [pim] Collect comments on RFC4601 implementation and deployment survey questionnaire

From: Vero Zheng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:31:37 +0800

Dear WG,

This email is to collect comments on RFC4601 implementations and deployments
survey questionnaire.

We have addressed all the errata (about 110) of RFC4601.  Optional features
which do not meet RFC2026 requirement have also been identified and removed
in the draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-00.

We are now planning a survey on RFC4601 implementation and deployment. This
survey intends to provide supporting documentation to advance the RFC4601 to
Draft Standard as required by IESG. 

Our survey report will be based on the replies of the questionnaire, which
targeting various vendors and operators.

We have prepared the questionnaire (as follows),  Stig & Mike will send it
out to wider communities on behalf of PIM WG later on.

Please send your questions or comments on the questionnaire to the list.

BR,

Jeffery, Rishabh and 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 RFC4601 in 2006. Considering its multiple
independent implementations developed and sufficient 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.
This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group.

Questions for operators:

1       Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network? 

2       Are you aware that the PIM-SM deployed is RFC2632 based or RFC4601
based?

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

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

5       Have you deployed different multicast protocols in different parts
of your network, such as dense mode and sparse mode, where you have
multicast routed between the two parts? If yes, do you know if this is done
using features such as (*,*,RP) and PMBR?

6       To what extent have you deployed ancillary PIM functionality, like
e.g. BSR, SSM, and Explicit Tracking?

7       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, e.g.
Border bit for PIM registers, Explicit tracking, Hashing of group to RP
mappings, IPv6 register PMTUD and Register DSCP/ECN bits?

6       Have you done any inter-operatibility trials with other PIM-SM
implementations based on RFC 4601 or RFC 2362? If yes, have you encountered
any issues during these trials?

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

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:03:15 -0700

On 10/14/2011 1:31 AM, Vero Zheng wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> This email is to collect comments on RFC4601 implementations and
> deployments survey questionnaire.

Just to be clear. At this point we only want to solicit comments on
the questionnaire itself. Are we asking the right sort of questions?
Are any of them unclear, is there anything else we should ask about?

So for now, please review the questionnaire itself, and let us know
what you think. Do not try to answer the questions at this point.

Stig