[MBONED] PIM survey for implementors

[Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>]

The IETF pim working group is conducting a survey in order to advance
the PIM Sparse Mode spec on the IETF Standards Track, and would like
input from implementors. The survey ends July 20th. Please see below
for more information.

thank you,
pim chairs Mike & Stig


Introduction:

PIM-SM was first published as RFC 2117 in 1997 and then again as RFC
2362 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 RFC 4601 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 RFC 6410, now the
intention is to progress it to Internet Standard.  Draft Standard is
not used anymore.)

This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group.

The responses will be collected by neutral third-party and kept
strictly confidential; only the final combined results will be
published.  Marshall Eubanks has agreed to anonymize the response to
this Questionnaire.  Marshall has a long experience with Multicast but
has no direct financial interest in this matter, nor ties to any of the
vendors involved.  He is also a member of the IAOC, Chair of the IETF
Trust and co-chair of the IETF Layer 3 VPN Working Group.  Please send
Questionnaire responses to his email address,
[e-mail].  He requests that such responses include
the string "RFC 4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject field.

Before answer the questions, please fill the following background 
information.

Name of the Respondent:
Affliation/Organization:
Contact Email:
Provide description of PIM implementation:
Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential:

Questions:

1       Have you implemented PIM-SM?

2       Is the PIM-SM implementation based on RFC 2632 or RFC 4601?

3       Have you implemented (*,*, RP) state of RFC 4601? What is the
         rationale behind implementing or omitting (*,*,RP)?

4       Have you implemented the PMBR as specified in RFC 4601 and
         RFC 2715?
         What is the rationale behind implementing or omitting PMBR?

5       Have you implemented other features and functions of RFC 4601:
                 - SSM
                 - Join Suppression
                 - Explicit tracking
                 - Register mechanism
                 - SPT switchover at last-hop router
                 - Assert mechanism
                 - Hashing of group to RP mappings

6       Does your PIM-SM implementation support IPv6?

7       Have you encountered any inter-operability issues with other
         PIM implementations in trials or in the field?

8       Do you have any other comments or concerns about PIM-SM as
         specified in RFC4601?