draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt   draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-01.txt 
Network Working Group L. Zheng Network Working Group L. Zheng
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational Z. Zhang Intended status: Informational Z. Zhang
Expires: October 23, 2013 Juniper Networks Expires: November 23, 2013 Juniper Networks
R. Parekh R. Parekh
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
April 23, 2013 May 23, 2013
Survey Report on PIM-SM Implementations and Deployments Survey Report on PIM-SM Implementations and Deployments
draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document provides supporting documentation to advance the This document provides supporting documentation to advance the
Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 23, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 23, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 32 skipping to change at page 3, line 32
states that:"The requirement for at least two independent and states that:"The requirement for at least two independent and
interoperable implementations applies to all of the options and interoperable implementations applies to all of the options and
features of the specification. In cases in which one or more options features of the specification. In cases in which one or more options
or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
level only if those options or features are removed." level only if those options or features are removed."
[RFC6410] updates the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) [RFC6410] updates the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Standards Process defined in [RFC2026]. Primarily, it reduces the Standards Process defined in [RFC2026]. Primarily, it reduces the
Standards Process from three Standards Track maturity levels to two. Standards Process from three Standards Track maturity levels to two.
The second maturity level is a merger of Draft Standard and Standard The second maturity level is a combination of Draft Standard and Standard
as specified in [RFC2026]. Section 2.2 of [RFC6410] states that:"(1) as specified in [RFC2026]. Section 2.2 of [RFC6410] states that:"(1)
There are at least two independent interoperating implementations There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
with widespread deployment and successful operational experience. (3) with widespread deployment and successful operational experience. (3)
There are no unused features in the specification that greatly There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
increase implementation complexity." increase implementation complexity."
Optional features which do not meet the foresaid criteria has been Optional features that do not meet the aforesaid criteria have been
identified by the PIM Working Group and will be removed. This identified by the PIM Working Group and will be removed. This
document intends to provide supporting documentation to advance the document intends to provide supporting documentation to advance the
Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Standard.
2. Survey on Implementations and Deployments 2. Survey on Implementations and Deployments
2.1. Methodology 2.1. Methodology
A questionnaire had been issued by the PIM WG co-chairs and announced A questionnaire was issued by the PIM WG co-chairs and announced
widely to the vendors and operational community to obtain information widely to the vendors and operational community to obtain information
on PIM-SM implementations and deployments. The Survey concluded on on PIM-SM implementations and deployments. The Survey concluded on
22nd Oct 2012. The responses will be kept strictly confidential and 22nd Oct 2012. The responses are kept strictly confidential and
only combined results will be published. The raw questionnaire will only combined results are published here. The raw questionnaire is
be shown in Appendix A, and a detailed summary of the responses will shown in Appendix A, and a detailed summary of the responses is
be included in the following section. included in the following section.
2.2. Operator Responses 2.2. Operator Responses
Nine operators responded to the survey. They are SWITCH, National Nine operators responded to the survey. They are SWITCH, National
Research Council Canada, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Research Council Canada, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology,
Motorola Solutions and five other anonymous operators. Motorola Solutions and five other anonymous operators.
2.2.1. Description of PIM Sparse-Mode deployments 2.2.1. Description of PIM Sparse-Mode deployments
In the last fourteen years, PIM-SM has been deployed for a wide In the last fourteen years, PIM-SM has been deployed for a wide
variety of applications: Campus, Enterprise, Research and WAN variety of applications: Campus, Enterprise, Research and WAN
networks, Broadband ISP and Digital TV. There are five deployments networks, Broadband ISP and Digital TV. There are five deployments
based on [RFC4601]implementation and two on [RFC2362] based on [RFC4601] implementations and two on [RFC2362]
implementations. PIM-SM for IPv6 has been deployed by three implementations. PIM-SM for IPv6 has been deployed by three
operators. Out of the nine operators, six have deployed PIM-SM operators. Out of the nine operators, six have deployed PIM-SM
implementations from multiple vendors. implementations from multiple vendors.
Operators reported minor inter-operability issues and these were Operators reported minor inter-operability issues and these were
addressed by the vendors. There was no major inter-operability addressed by the vendors. There was no major inter-operability
concern reported by the operators. concern reported by the operators.
2.2.2. PIM Sparse-Mode deployment with other multicast technologies 2.2.2. PIM Sparse-Mode deployment with other multicast technologies
skipping to change at page 4, line 52 skipping to change at page 4, line 52
Border Route (PMBR) for inter-connection between PIM Sparse-Mode and Border Route (PMBR) for inter-connection between PIM Sparse-Mode and
other multicast domains. other multicast domains.
2.2.3. PIM Sparse-Mode RPs and RP Discovery mechanisms 2.2.3. PIM Sparse-Mode RPs and RP Discovery mechanisms
The number of Sparse-Mode RPs deployed by operators range from a few The number of Sparse-Mode RPs deployed by operators range from a few
(up to sixteen) to a massively scaled number (four hundred). Both (up to sixteen) to a massively scaled number (four hundred). Both
static configuration and Bootstrap Router (BSR) have been deployed as static configuration and Bootstrap Router (BSR) have been deployed as
RP discovery mechanisms. RP discovery mechanisms.
Anycast-RP has been deployed for RP redundancy. Two operator have Anycast-RP has been deployed for RP redundancy. Two operators have
deployed Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446). Three operators have deployed deployed Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446). Three operators have deployed
Anycast-RP using both MSDP (RFC 3446) and PIM (RFC 4610) for different Anycast-RP using both MSDP (RFC 3446) and PIM (RFC 4610) for different
scenarios. The best common practice seems to be to use scenarios. The best common practice seems to be to use
static-RP configuration with Anycast-RP for redundancy. static-RP configuration with Anycast-RP for redundancy.
2.3. Vendor Responses 2.3. Vendor Responses
Eight vendors have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations. They Eight vendors have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations. They
are XORP, Huawei Technologies, Cisco Systems, Motorola Solutions, are XORP, Huawei Technologies, Cisco Systems, Motorola Solutions,
Juniper Networks and three other anonymous vendors. Juniper Networks and three other anonymous vendors.
skipping to change at page 6, line 18 skipping to change at page 6, line 18
2.4. Key Findings 2.4. Key Findings
1. PIM Sparse-Mode has been widely implemented and deployed for 1. PIM Sparse-Mode has been widely implemented and deployed for
different applications. The PIM Sparse-Mode protocol is sufficiently different applications. The PIM Sparse-Mode protocol is sufficiently
well specified in RFC 4601 resulting in inter-operable implementation well specified in RFC 4601 resulting in inter-operable implementation
deployed by operators. deployed by operators.
2. There are no deployments and only one known implementation of 2. There are no deployments and only one known implementation of
(*,*,RP) and PMBR as specified in RFC 4601. Hence, it is necessary (*,*,RP) and PMBR as specified in RFC 4601. Hence, it is necessary
to remove these features from the specification as required by to remove these features from the specification as required by
[RFC2026] and [RFC6410] [RFC2026] and [RFC6410].
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet. This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of the IANA. This document makes no request of the IANA.
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
15 lines changed or deleted 15 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/