draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-01.txt   draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02.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: November 23, 2013 Juniper Networks Expires: December 5, 2013 Juniper Networks
R. Parekh R. Parekh
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
May 23, 2013 June 5, 2013
Survey Report on PIM-SM Implementations and Deployments Survey Report on PIM-SM Implementations and Deployments
draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-01.txt draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02.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 November 23, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 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 6 skipping to change at page 3, line 6
6.1. Appendix A.1 PIM Survey for Operators . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Appendix A.1 PIM Survey for Operators . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Appendix A.2 PIM Survey for Implementors . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. Appendix A.2 PIM Survey for Implementors . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Motivation 1. Motivation
1.1. Overview of PIM-SM 1.1. Overview of PIM-SM
PIM-SM was first published as [RFC2117] in 1997 and then again as PIM-SM was first published as [RFC2117] in 1997 and then again as
[RFC2362] in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in [RFC2362] in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in
both of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol specification was then both of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol specification was then
rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as [RFC4601] in rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as [RFC4601] in
2006. Considering its multiple independent implementations developed 2006. Considering its multiple independent implementations developed
and sufficient successful operational experience gained, the IETF has and sufficient successful operational experience gained, the PIM WG
decided to advance the PIM-SM protocol to Internet Standard. decided to advance the PIM-SM protocol to Internet Standard and the
survey and this document are part of the work.
1.2. RFC2026 and RFC6410 Requirements 1.2. RFC2026 and RFC6410 Requirements
[RFC2026] defines the stages in the standardization process, the [RFC2026] defines the stages in the standardization process, the
requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of
documents used during this process. Section 4.1.2 of [RFC2026] documents used during this process. Section 4.1.2 of [RFC2026]
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
skipping to change at page 3, line 43 skipping to change at page 3, line 43
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 that do not meet the aforesaid criteria have 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 Standard. protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.
2. Survey on Implementations and Deployments 2. Survey on Implementations and Deployments
2.1. Methodology 2.1. Methodology
A questionnaire was 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 are kept strictly confidential and 22nd Oct 2012. The responses are kept confidential and only combined
only combined results are published here. The raw questionnaire is results are published here, while responders chose whether their
shown in Appendix A, and a detailed summary of the responses is affilations are confidential. The raw questionnaire
is shown in Appendix A, and a compilation of the responses is
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
skipping to change at page 5, line 43 skipping to change at page 5, line 43
they were implemented just because these were part of the [RFC4601] they were implemented just because these were part of the [RFC4601]
specification. specification.
2.3.3. Implementations of other features of RFC4601 2.3.3. Implementations of other features of RFC4601
Most vendors have implemented all of the following from [RFC4601] Most vendors have implemented all of the following from [RFC4601]
specifications: specifications:
- SSM - SSM
- Join Suppression - Join suppression
- Explicit tracking - Explicit tracking
- Register mechanism - Register mechanism
- SPT switchover at last-hop router - SPT switchover at last-hop router
- Assert mechanism - Assert mechanism
- Hashing of group to RP mappings - Hashing of group to RP mappings
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
12 lines changed or deleted 13 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/