Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] Meet in Montreal?

[Hitoshi Asaeda <[e-mail]>]

Hi folks,

I'll be there.

I'm sorry I've not contributed to this draft update.
I'm not an operator and have no information privately, but I asked one Japanese operator to give some input based on the questionnaire and got it. I hope it can be a good input.

Regards,

Hitoshi


===from here===

3.2.  Questionnaire for Network Operators

   Name: Takatoshi Ikeda

   Affiliation/Organization: APAN-JP

   Contact Email: [e-mail]

   Do you wish to keep your name and affiliation confidential?:

3.2.1.  Deployment Status

   Which of the following are currently deployed in your network?  And
   for how long has it been deployed?

   1.  IGMPv1 [RFC1112] deployed?: N, since:

   2.  IGMPv2 [RFC2236] deployed?: Y, since:

   3.  IGMPv3 [RFC3376] deployed?: Y, since:

   4.  Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790] Implemented: N, since:

   5.  MLDv1 [RFC2710] deployed?: Y, since:

   6.  MLDv2 [RFC3810] deployed?: Y, since:

   7.  Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] deployed?: N, since:

3.2.2.  Deployment Specifics

   1.  Which IGMPv3 features are in use?  (Is Exclude mode with source
       list in use?)
        Membership-report for SSM
        No filter function is used.


   2.  Which MLDv2 features are in use?  (Is Exclude mode with source
       list in use?)
        Membership-report for SSM
        No filter function is used.


   3.  Does your network rely on the fallback mechanism between
       different IGMP versions?  (Between which IGMP versions?)  (What
       is your experience with this fallback mechanism?)

        No

   4.  Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor)
       implementations for your deployment?  (Have you encountered any
       inter-operability or backward-compatibility issues amongst
       differing implementations?)  (What are your concerns about these
       issues?)

       No

3.2.3.  Deployment Perspectives

   1.  What have you found to be the strengths of IGMPv3/MLDv2?
       Specifying Source for Multicast

   2.  What have you found to be the weaknesses of IGMPv3/MLDv2?
       None

   3.  What suggestions would you make to the PIM WG as it seeks to
       update these documents?

===to here===


> On Jul 17, 2019, at 4:59, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I hope i can go to IETF105 and would be happy to meet. Have not tried to
> work out my schedule, but if i am there, it will be whole week.
> 
> Who else is coming ?
> 
> Cheers
>    Toerless
> 
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 07:07:55PM +0000, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This IETF I would not be able to make it.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Mankamana
>> 
>> 
>> From: Igmp-mld-bis <[e-mail]> on behalf of Timothy Winters <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Monday, July 15, 2019 at 12:06 PM
>> To: Olufemi Komolafe <femi=[e-mail]>
>> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] Meet in Montreal?
>> 
>> I'm available Tuesday morning.
>> 
>> ~Tim
>> 
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:01 PM Olufemi Komolafe <femi=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Not sure who is attending IETF 105 in Montreal next week but I was thinking that perhaps those of us attending can fix a time/place to meet up?
>> 
>> It might be an idea to meet on Monday or Tuesday, i.e. before the PIM WG meeting on Thursday, to try to progress and finalise the survey?
>> 
>> Also, there have been some discussions on the thread recently so it???d be good for folks to please take a look and provide any thoughts/feedback?
>> 
>> In my opinion, we should aim to handing over the survey to the WG chairs before the meeting so the focus can shift on to starting the actual mechanics of distributing the survey etc.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Femi
>> 
>> --
>> Igmp-mld-bis mailing list
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis
> 
>> -- 
>> Igmp-mld-bis mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---
> [e-mail]
> 
> -- 
> Igmp-mld-bis mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis