draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02.txt   draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-03.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: December 5, 2013 Juniper Networks Expires: March 22, 2014 Juniper Networks
R. Parekh R. Parekh
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
June 5, 2013 September 18, 2013
Survey Report on PIM-SM Implementations and Deployments Survey Report on PIM-SM Implementations and Deployments
draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02.txt draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-03.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
protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. 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
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 December 5, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Overview of PIM-SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Overview of PIM-SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. RFC2026 and RFC6410 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. [RFC2026] and [RFC6410] Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Survey on Implementations and Deployments . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Survey on Implementations and Deployments . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Operator Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Operator Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. Description of PIM Sparse-Mode deployments . . . . . . 4 2.2.1. Description of PIM-SM deployments . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2. PIM Sparse-Mode deployment with other multicast 2.2.2. PIM-SM deployment with other multicast technologies . 4
technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.3. PIM-SM RPs and RP Discovery mechanisms . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.3. PIM Sparse-Mode RPs and RP Discovery mechanisms . . . 4
2.3. Vendor Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Vendor Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1. RFC4601 and RFC2362 implementations . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3.1. [RFC4601] and [RFC2362] implementations . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2. Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementations . . . . . . 5 2.3.2. Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementations . . . . . . 5
2.3.3. Implementations of other features of RFC4601 . . . . . 5 2.3.3. Implementations of other features of RFC4601 . . . . . 5
2.4. Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4. Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Appendix A. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Appendix A.1 PIM Survey for Operators . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Appendix A.2 PIM Survey for Implementors . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.1. PIM Survey for Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.2. PIM Survey for Implementors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) was first
[RFC2362] in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in published as [RFC2117] in 1997 and then again as [RFC2362] in 1998.
both of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol specification was then The protocol was classified as Experimental in both of these
rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as [RFC4601] in documents. The protocol specification was then rewritten in whole
2006. Considering its multiple independent implementations developed and advanced to Proposed Standard as [RFC4601] in 2006. Considering
and sufficient successful operational experience gained, the PIM WG its multiple independent implementations developed and sufficient
decided to advance the PIM-SM protocol to Internet Standard and the successful operational experience gained, the PIM WG decided to
survey and this document are part of the work. 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
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 combination of Draft Standard and Standard The second maturity level is a combination of Draft Standard and
as specified in [RFC2026]. Section 2.2 of [RFC6410] states that:"(1) Standard as specified in [RFC2026]. Section 2.2 of [RFC6410] states
There are at least two independent interoperating implementations that: "(1) There are at least two independent interoperating
with widespread deployment and successful operational experience. (3) implementations with widespread deployment and successful operational
There are no unused features in the specification that greatly experience. (3) There are no unused features in the specification
increase implementation complexity." that greatly 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) PIM-SM protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Internet 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 confidential and only combined 22nd Oct 2012. The responses are kept confidential and only combined
results are published here, while responders chose whether their results are published here, while responders chose whether their
affilations are confidential. The raw questionnaire affiliations are confidential. The raw questionnaire is shown in
is shown in Appendix A, and a compilation of the responses is Appendix A, and a compilation of the responses is included in the
included in the following section. 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 anonymous operators.
2.2.1. Description of PIM Sparse-Mode deployments 2.2.1. Description of PIM-SM deployments
In the last fourteen years, PIM-SM has been deployed for a wide Since 1998, PIM-SM has been deployed for a wide variety of
variety of applications: Campus, Enterprise, Research and WAN applications: Campus, Enterprise, Research and WAN networks,
networks, Broadband ISP and Digital TV. There are five deployments Broadband ISP and Digital TV. There are five deployments based on
based on [RFC4601] implementations and two on [RFC2362] [RFC4601] implementations and two on [RFC2362] implementations.
implementations. PIM-SM for IPv6 has been deployed by three PIM-SM for IPv6 has been deployed by three operators. Out of the
operators. Out of the nine operators, six have deployed PIM-SM nine operators, six have deployed PIM-SM implementations from
implementations from multiple vendors. 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-SM deployment with other multicast technologies
Except for one deployment of PIM Sparse-Mode with Multicast OSPF Except for one deployment of PIM-SM with Multicast OSPF (MOSPF), all
(MOSPF), all other operators have deployed PIM-SM exclusively. No other operators have deployed PIM-SM exclusively. No operators
operators acknowledged deployments of either (*,*,RP) or PIM Multicast acknowledged deployments of either (*,*,RP) or PIM Multicast Border
Border Route (PMBR) for inter-connection between PIM Sparse-Mode and Route (PMBR) for inter-connection between PIM-SM and other multicast
other multicast domains. domains.
2.2.3. PIM Sparse-Mode RPs and RP Discovery mechanisms 2.2.3. PIM-SM RPs and RP Discovery mechanisms
The number of Sparse-Mode RPs deployed by operators range from a few The number of PIM-SM RPs deployed by operators range from a few (up
(up to sixteen) to a massively scaled number (four hundred). Both to sixteen) to a massively scaled number (four hundred). Both static
static configuration and Bootstrap Router (BSR) have been deployed as configuration and Bootstrap Router (BSR) have been deployed as RP
RP discovery mechanisms. discovery mechanisms.
Anycast-RP has been deployed for RP redundancy. Two operators 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 [RFC3446]. Three operators have
Anycast-RP using both MSDP (RFC 3446) and PIM (RFC 4610) for different deployed Anycast-RP using both MSDP [RFC3446] and PIM [RFC4610] for
scenarios. The best common practice seems to be to use different 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 reported PIM-SM implementations. They are XORP, Huawei
are XORP, Huawei Technologies, Cisco Systems, Motorola Solutions, Technologies, Cisco Systems, Motorola Solutions, Juniper Networks and
Juniper Networks and three other anonymous vendors. three other anonymous vendors.
2.3.1. RFC4601 and RFC2362 implementations 2.3.1. [RFC4601] and [RFC2362] implementations
Four vendors have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations based on Four vendors reported PIM-SM implementations based on [RFC4601] and
RFC 4601 and two have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations two reported PIM-SM implementations based on [RFC2362]. Two other
based on RFC 2362. Two other reported implementations are hybrid. reported implementations are hybrid.
Minor inter-operability issues have been addressed by the vendors Minor inter-operability issues have been addressed by the vendors
over the years and no concern was reported by any vendor. over the years and no concern was reported by any vendor.
2.3.2. Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementations 2.3.2. Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementations
Most vendors have not implemented (*,*,RP) state as specified in Most vendors have not implemented (*,*,RP) state as specified in
[RFC4601] either due to lack of deployment requirements or due to [RFC4601] either due to lack of deployment requirements or due to
security concerns. Similarly, most vendors have also not implemented security concerns. Similarly, most vendors have also not implemented
PMBR due to lack of deployment requirements or because it was PMBR due to lack of deployment requirements or because it was
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 43
Only one vendor, XORP, reported (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementation and Only one vendor, XORP, reported (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementation and
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 o SSM
- Join suppression o Join suppression
- Explicit tracking o Explicit tracking
- Register mechanism o Register mechanism
- SPT switchover at last-hop router o SPT switchover at last-hop router
o Assert mechanism
- Assert mechanism o Hashing of group to RP mappings
- Hashing of group to RP mappings
Some vendors do not implement explicit tracking and SSM. Some vendors do not implement explicit tracking and SSM.
2.4. Key Findings 2.4. Key Findings
1. PIM Sparse-Mode has been widely implemented and deployed for PIM-SM has been widely implemented and deployed for different
different applications. The PIM Sparse-Mode protocol is sufficiently applications. The protocol is sufficiently well specified in
well specified in RFC 4601 resulting in inter-operable implementation [RFC4601] resulting in inter-operable implementation deployed by
deployed by operators. operators.
2. There are no deployments and only one known implementation of 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 [RFC4601]. 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. The PIM WG is aware of at least three (and believes there are more)
PIM-SM implementations that support the use of IPsec to protect PIM
messages. For at least one of them, IPsec is not part of the PIM
implementation itself - one just configures IPsec with SPDs where
interface, the ALL_PIM_ROUTERS multicast address, etc., can be used
as selectors, according to [RFC5796].
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
The authors would like to thanks Tim Chown and Bill Atwood who had The authors would like to thanks Tim Chown and Bill Atwood who had
helped to collect and anonymize the responses as the neutral third- helped to collect and anonymize the responses as the neutral third-
party. Special thanks are also given to Alexander Gall, William F party. Special thanks are also given to Alexander Gall, William F
Maton Sotomayor, Steve Bauer, Sonum Mathur, Pavlin Radoslavov, Shuxue Maton Sotomayor, Steve Bauer, Sonum Mathur, Pavlin Radoslavov, Shuxue
Fan, Sameer Gulrajani and to the anonymous responders. Fan, Sameer Gulrajani and to the anonymous responders.
6. Appendix A. Questionnaire 6. References
This appendix reproduces a questionnaire that was made available for 6.1. Normative References
operators and vendors to express their experience and considerations.
6.1. Appendix A.1 PIM Survey for Operators [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
Introduction: [RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
October 2011.
PIM-SM was first published as RFC2117 in 1997 and then again as 6.2. Informative References
RFC2362 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 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
RFC6410, now the intention is to progress it to Internet Standard.
Draft Standard is no longer used.)
This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group. [RFC2117] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P., and L.
Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997.
The responses will be collected by a neutral third-party and kept [RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
strictly confidential if requested in the response; only the final S., Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "Protocol Independent
combined results will be published. Tim Chown and Bill Atwood have Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification",
agreed to anonymize the response to this Questionnaire. They have a RFC 2362, June 1998.
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 [RFC3446] Kim, D., Meyer, D., Kilmer, H., and D. Farinacci, "Anycast
addresses are tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk and william.atwood@concordia.ca. Rendevous Point (RP) mechanism using Protocol Independent
Please include the string "RFC4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject Multicast (PIM) and Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
field. (MSDP)", RFC 3446, January 2003.
Before answering the questions, please complete the following [RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
background information. "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
Name of the Respondent: [RFC4610] Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol
Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610, August 2006.
Affiliation/Organization: [RFC5796] Atwood, W., Islam, S., and M. Siami, "Authentication and
Confidentiality in Protocol Independent Multicast Sparse
Mode (PIM-SM) Link-Local Messages", RFC 5796, March 2010.
Contact Email: Appendix A. Questionnaire
Provide description of PIM deployment: A.1. PIM Survey for Operators
Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential: Introduction:
Questions: PIM-SM was first published as RFC2117 in 1997 and then again as
RFC2362 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 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
RFC6410, now the intention is to progress it to Internet Standard.
Draft Standard is no longer used.)
1 Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network? This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group.
2 How long have you had PIM-SM deployed in your network? Do you know The responses will be collected by a neutral third-party and kept
strictly confidential if requested in the response; 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 tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk and william.atwood@concordia.ca.
Please include the string "RFC4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject
field.
Before answering the questions, please complete the following
background information.
Name of the Respondent:
Affiliation/Organization:
Contact Email:
Provide description of PIM deployment:
Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential:
Questions:
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? if your deployment is based on the most recent RFC4601?
3 Have you deployed PIM-SM for IPv6 in your network? 3 Have you deployed PIM-SM for IPv6 in your network?
4 Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) PIM-SM 4 Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) PIM-SM
implementations for your deployment? implementations for your deployment?
5 Have you encountered any inter-operability or backward- 5 Have you encountered any inter-operability or backward-
compatibility issues amongst differing implementations? If yes, what compatibility issues amongst differing implementations? If yes, what
are your concerns about these issues? are your concerns about these issues?
6 Have you deployed both dense mode and sparse mode in your network? 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 If yes, do you route between these modes using features such as
*,*,RP or PMBR? *,*,RP or PMBR?
7 To what extent have you deployed PIM functionality, like BSR, SSM, 7 To what extent have you deployed PIM functionality, like BSR, SSM,
and Explicit Tracking? and Explicit Tracking?
8 Which RP mapping mechanism do you use: Static, AutoRP, or BSR? 8 Which RP mapping mechanism do you use: Static, AutoRP, or BSR?
9 How many RPs have you deployed in your network? 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 10 If you use Anycast-RP, is it Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446) or
Anycast-RP using PIM (RFC4610)? Anycast-RP using PIM (RFC4610)?
11 Do you have any other comments on PIM-SM deployment in your 11 Do you have any other comments on PIM-SM deployment in your
network? network?
6.2. Appendix A.2 PIM Survey for Implementors A.2. PIM Survey for Implementors
Introduction: Introduction:
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 both RFC2362 in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in both
of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol specification was then 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 the multiple independent implementations developed 2006. Considering the multiple independent implementations developed
and the successful operational experience gained, the IETF has and the successful operational experience gained, the IETF has
decided to advance the PIM-SM routing protocol to Draft Standard. decided to advance the PIM-SM routing protocol to Draft Standard.
skipping to change at page 13, line 4 skipping to change at page 13, line 51
Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential: Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential:
Questions: Questions:
1 Have you implemented PIM-SM? 1 Have you implemented PIM-SM?
2 Is the PIM-SM implementation based on RFC2362 or RFC4601? 2 Is the PIM-SM implementation based on RFC2362 or RFC4601?
3 Have you implemented (*,*, RP) state of RFC4601? What is the 3 Have you implemented (*,*, RP) state of RFC4601? What is the
rationale behind implementing or omitting (*,*,RP)? rationale behind implementing or omitting (*,*,RP)?
4 Have you implemented the PMBR as specified in RFC4601 and RFC2715? 4 Have you implemented the PMBR as specified in RFC4601 and RFC2715?
What is the rationale behind implementing or omitting PMBR? What is the rationale behind implementing or omitting PMBR?
5 Have you implemented other features and functions of RFC4601: 5 Have you implemented other features and functions of RFC4601:
- 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
6 Does your PIM-SM implementation support IPv6? 6 Does your PIM-SM implementation support IPv6?
7 Have you encountered any inter-operability issues with other PIM 7 Have you encountered any inter-operability issues with other PIM
implementations in trials or in the field? implementations in trials or in the field?
8 Do you have any other comments or concerns about PIM-SM as 8 Do you have any other comments or concerns about PIM-SM as
specified in RFC4601? specified in RFC4601?
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2117] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P., and L.
Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997.
[RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
S., Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "Protocol Independent
Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification",
RFC 2362, June 1998.
[RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
October 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Lianshu Zheng Lianshu Zheng
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
China China
Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com
Zhaohui Zhang Zhaohui Zhang
 End of changes. 69 change blocks. 
171 lines changed or deleted 185 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/