draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-03.txt   rfc7063.txt 
Network Working Group L. Zheng Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Zheng
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Request for Comments: 7063 Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational Z. Zhang Category: Informational Z. Zhang
Expires: March 22, 2014 Juniper Networks ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper Networks
R. Parekh R. Parekh
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
September 18, 2013 December 2013
Survey Report on PIM-SM Implementations and Deployments Survey Report on Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-03.txt Implementations and Deployments
Abstract Abstract
This document provides supporting documentation to advance the This document provides supporting documentation to advance the IETF
Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) protocol from stream's Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. protocol from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute published for informational purposes.
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 2014. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7063.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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. Requirements of RFCs 2026 and 6410 .........................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-SM Deployments ...................4
2.2.1. Description of PIM-SM deployments . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.2. PIM-SM 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-SM Rendezvous Points (RPs) and RP
2.3. Vendor Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Discovery Mechanisms ................................4
2.3.1. [RFC4601] and [RFC2362] implementations . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Vendor Responses ...........................................5
2.3.2. Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementations . . . . . . 5 2.3.1. Implementations Based on RFCs 4601 and 2362 .........5
2.3.3. Implementations of other features of RFC4601 . . . . . 5 2.3.2. Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR Implementations ...........5
2.4. Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3.3. Implementations of Other Features of RFC 4601 .......5
2.4. Key Findings ...............................................6
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Security Considerations .........................................6
4. Acknowledgements ................................................6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. References ......................................................6
5.1. Normative References .......................................6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.2. Informative References .....................................7
Appendix A. Questionnaire ..........................................8
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A.1. PIM Survey for Operators ....................................8
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A.2. PIM Survey for Implementors ................................10
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.1. PIM Survey for Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.2. PIM Survey for Implementors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Motivation 1. Motivation
1.1. Overview of PIM-SM 1.1. Overview of PIM-SM
Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) was first Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) was first
published as [RFC2117] in 1997 and then again as [RFC2362] in 1998. published as [RFC2117] in 1997. This version was then obsoleted by
The protocol was classified as Experimental in both of these [RFC2362] in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in
documents. The protocol specification was then rewritten in whole both documents. The protocol specification was then rewritten in
and advanced to Proposed Standard as [RFC4601] in 2006. Considering whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as [RFC4601] in 2006.
its multiple independent implementations developed and sufficient Considering its multiple independent implementations developed and
successful operational experience gained, the PIM WG decided to sufficient successful operational experience gained, the PIM WG
advance the PIM-SM protocol to Internet Standard and the survey and decided to advance the PIM-SM protocol to Internet Standard. The
this document are part of the work. conducted survey and this document are part of the work.
1.2. [RFC2026] and [RFC6410] Requirements 1.2. Requirements of RFCs 2026 and 6410
[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:
interoperable implementations applies to all of the options and
features of the specification. In cases in which one or more options
or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
level only if those options or features are removed."
[RFC6410] updates the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
Standards Process defined in [RFC2026]. Primarily, it reduces the implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
Standards Process from three Standards Track maturity levels to two. specification. In cases in which one or more options or features
The second maturity level is a combination of Draft Standard and have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
Standard as specified in [RFC2026]. Section 2.2 of [RFC6410] states implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft
that: "(1) There are at least two independent interoperating Standard level only if those options or features are removed.
implementations with widespread deployment and successful operational
experience. (3) There are no unused features in the specification [RFC6410] updates the IETF Standards Process defined in [RFC2026].
that greatly increase implementation complexity." Primarily, it reduces the Standards Process from three Standards
Track maturity levels to two. The second maturity level is a
combination of Draft Standard and Standard as specified in [RFC2026].
Section 2.2 of [RFC6410] states that:
(1) There are at least two independent interoperating
implementations with widespread deployment and successful
operational experience.
(2)...
(3) There are no unused features in the specification 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 provides supporting documentation to advance the IETF
PIM-SM protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. stream's Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
protocol from 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 22 Oct 2012. The responses remain confidential and only combined
results are published here, while responders chose whether their results are published here, while responders chose whether to keep
affiliations are confidential. The raw questionnaire is shown in their affiliations confidential. The raw questionnaire is shown in
Appendix A, and a compilation of the responses is included in the Appendix A, and a compilation of the responses is 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 anonymous operators. Motorola Solutions, and five anonymous operators.
2.2.1. Description of PIM-SM deployments 2.2.1. Description of PIM-SM Deployments
Since 1998, PIM-SM has been deployed for a wide variety of Since 1998, PIM-SM has been deployed for a wide variety of
applications: Campus, Enterprise, Research and WAN networks, applications: Campus, Enterprise, Research and WAN networks,
Broadband ISP and Digital TV. There are five deployments based on Broadband ISP, and Digital TV. There are five deployments based on
[RFC4601] implementations and two on [RFC2362] implementations. [RFC4601] implementations and two on [RFC2362] implementations. PIM-
PIM-SM for IPv6 has been deployed by three operators. Out of the SM for IPv6 has been deployed by three operators. Out of the nine
nine operators, six have deployed PIM-SM implementations from operators, six have deployed PIM-SM implementations from multiple
multiple vendors. vendors.
Operators reported minor inter-operability issues and these were Operators reported minor interoperability issues and these were
addressed by the vendors. There was no major inter-operability addressed by the vendors. There was no major interoperability
concern reported by the operators. concern reported by the operators.
2.2.2. PIM-SM deployment with other multicast technologies 2.2.2. PIM-SM Deployment with Other Multicast Technologies
Except for one deployment of PIM-SM with Multicast OSPF (MOSPF), all Except for one deployment of PIM-SM with Multicast Extensions to OSPF
other operators have deployed PIM-SM exclusively. No operators (MOSPF), all other operators have deployed PIM-SM exclusively. No
acknowledged deployments of either (*,*,RP) or PIM Multicast Border operators acknowledged deployments of either (*,*,RP) or PIM
Route (PMBR) for inter-connection between PIM-SM and other multicast Multicast Border Route (PMBR) for interconnection between PIM-SM and
domains. other multicast domains.
2.2.3. PIM-SM RPs and RP Discovery mechanisms 2.2.3. PIM-SM Rendezvous Points (RPs) and RP Discovery Mechanisms
The number of PIM-SM RPs deployed by operators range from a few (up The number of PIM-SM RPs deployed by operators ranges from a few
to sixteen) to a massively scaled number (four hundred). Both static (e.g., sixteen) to a massively scaled number (four hundred). Both
configuration and Bootstrap Router (BSR) have been deployed as RP static configuration and Bootstrap Router (BSR) have been deployed as
discovery mechanisms. RP 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 [RFC3446]. Three operators have deployed Anycast-RP using the Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
deployed Anycast-RP using both MSDP [RFC3446] and PIM [RFC4610] for (MSDP) [RFC3446]. Three operators have deployed Anycast-RP using
different scenarios. The best common practice seems to be to use both MSDP [RFC3446] and PIM [RFC4610] for different scenarios. The
static-RP configuration with Anycast-RP for redundancy. best common practice seems to be to use static-RP configuration with
Anycast-RP for redundancy.
2.3. Vendor Responses 2.3. Vendor Responses
Eight vendors reported PIM-SM implementations. They are XORP, Huawei Eight vendors reported PIM-SM implementations. They are XORP, Huawei
Technologies, Cisco Systems, Motorola Solutions, Juniper Networks and Technologies, Cisco Systems, Motorola Solutions, Juniper Networks,
three other anonymous vendors. and three other anonymous vendors.
2.3.1. [RFC4601] and [RFC2362] implementations 2.3.1. Implementations Based on RFCs 4601 and 2362
Four vendors reported PIM-SM implementations based on [RFC4601] and Four vendors reported PIM-SM implementations based on [RFC4601] and
two reported PIM-SM implementations based on [RFC2362]. Two other two reported PIM-SM implementations based on [RFC2362]. Two other
reported implementations are hybrid. reported implementations are hybrids.
Minor inter-operability issues have been addressed by the vendors Minor interoperability issues have been addressed by the vendors over
over the years and no concern was reported by any vendor. the years and no concerns were 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
considered to be too complex and non-scalable. considered too complex and non-scalable.
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 RFC 4601
Most vendors have implemented all of the following from [RFC4601] Most vendors have implemented all of the following from the [RFC4601]
specifications: specification:
o SSM o Source-Specific Multicast (SSM)
o Join suppression o Join suppression
o Explicit tracking o Explicit tracking
o Register mechanism o Register mechanism
o SPT switchover at last-hop router o Shortest Path Tree (SPT) switchover at last-hop router
o Assert mechanism o Assert mechanism
o Hashing of group to RP mappings o 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
PIM-SM has been widely implemented and deployed for different PIM-SM has been widely implemented and deployed for different
applications. The protocol is sufficiently well specified in applications. The protocol is sufficiently well specified in
[RFC4601] resulting in inter-operable implementation deployed by [RFC4601] resulting in interoperable implementation deployed by
operators. operators.
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 [RFC4601]. 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
The PIM WG is aware of at least three (and believes there are more) 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 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 messages. For at least one of them, IPsec is not part of the PIM
implementation itself - one just configures IPsec with SPDs where implementation itself -- one just configures IPsec with Security
interface, the ALL_PIM_ROUTERS multicast address, etc., can be used Policy Databases (SPDs) where interface, the ALL_PIM_ROUTERS
as selectors, according to [RFC5796]. multicast address, etc., can be used as selectors, according to
[RFC5796].
4. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of the IANA.
5. Acknowledgements 4. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thanks Tim Chown and Bill Atwood who had The authors would like to thank Tim Chown and Bill Atwood, who helped
helped to collect and anonymize the responses as the neutral third- to collect and anonymize the responses as the neutral third party.
party. Special thanks are also given to Alexander Gall, William F Special thanks are also given to Alexander Gall, William F. Maton
Maton Sotomayor, Steve Bauer, Sonum Mathur, Pavlin Radoslavov, Shuxue Sotomayor, Steve Bauer, Sonum Mathur, Pavlin Radoslavov, Shuxue Fan,
Fan, Sameer Gulrajani and to the anonymous responders. Sameer Gulrajani, and to the anonymous responders.
6. References 5. References
6.1. Normative References 5.1. Normative References
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the [RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410, Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
October 2011. October 2011.
6.2. Informative References 5.2. Informative References
[RFC2117] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering, [RFC2117] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P., and L. S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P., and L.
Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997. Protocol Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997.
[RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering, [RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
S., Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "Protocol Independent S., Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "Protocol Independent
Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification",
RFC 2362, June 1998. RFC 2362, June 1998.
skipping to change at page 11, line 7 skipping to change at page 8, line 7
[RFC4610] Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol [RFC4610] Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol
Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610, August 2006. Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610, August 2006.
[RFC5796] Atwood, W., Islam, S., and M. Siami, "Authentication and [RFC5796] Atwood, W., Islam, S., and M. Siami, "Authentication and
Confidentiality in Protocol Independent Multicast Sparse Confidentiality in Protocol Independent Multicast Sparse
Mode (PIM-SM) Link-Local Messages", RFC 5796, March 2010. Mode (PIM-SM) Link-Local Messages", RFC 5796, March 2010.
Appendix A. Questionnaire Appendix A. Questionnaire
This section provides copies of the questionnaires exactly as
distributed to operators and implementors.
A.1. PIM Survey for Operators A.1. PIM Survey for Operators
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
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 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.
This survey intends to provide supporting documentation to advance This survey intends to provide supporting documentation to advance
the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing
protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. (Due to protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. (Due to
RFC6410, now the intention is to progress it to Internet Standard. RFC6410, now the intention is to progress it to Internet Standard.
Draft Standard is no longer used.) Draft Standard is no longer used.)
This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group. This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group.
The responses will be collected by a neutral third-party and kept The responses will be collected by a neutral third-party and kept
strictly confidential if requested in the response; only the final strictly confidential if requested in the response; only the final
combined results will be published. Tim Chown and Bill Atwood have combined results will be published. Tim Chown and Bill Atwood have
agreed to anonymize the response to this Questionnaire. They have a agreed to anonymize the response to this Questionnaire. They have a
long experience with multicast but have no direct financial interest long experience with multicast but have no direct financial interest
in this matter, nor ties to any of the vendors involved. Tim is 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 working at University of Southampton, UK, and he has been active in
the IETF for many years, including the mboned working group, and he 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 is a co-chair of the 6renum working group. Bill is at Concordia
University, Montreal, Canada, and he has been an active participant University, Montreal, Canada, and he has been an active participant
in the IETF pim working group for over ten years, especially in the in the IETF pim working group for over ten years, especially in the
area of security. area of security.
Please send questionnaire responses addressed to them both. The Please send questionnaire responses addressed to them both. The
addresses are tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk and william.atwood@concordia.ca. addresses are tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk and william.atwood@concordia.ca.
Please include the string "RFC4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject Please include the string "RFC4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject
field. field.
Before answering the questions, please complete the following Before answering the questions, please complete the following
background information. background information.
Name of the Respondent: Name of the Respondent:
Affiliation/Organization: Affiliation/Organization:
Contact Email: Contact Email:
Provide description of PIM deployment: Provide description of PIM deployment:
Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential: Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential:
Questions: Questions:
1 Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network? 1 Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network?
2 How long have you had PIM-SM deployed in your network? Do you know 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,
are your concerns about these issues? what 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?
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
skipping to change at page 15, line 11 skipping to change at page 12, line 11
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?
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
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
USA USA
Email: zzhang@juniper.net EMail: zzhang@juniper.net
Rishabh Parekh Rishabh Parekh
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
USA USA
Email: riparekh@cisco.com EMail: riparekh@cisco.com
 End of changes. 69 change blocks. 
199 lines changed or deleted 200 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/