[pim] Collect comments on RFC4601 implementation and deployment survey questionnaire
Vero Zheng <vero.zheng@huawei.com> Fri, 14 October 2011 08:33 UTC
Return-Path: <vero.zheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6622121F8B27 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g218m4kJyKKb for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16BCC21F8B1E for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LT1005CXROZBE@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for pim@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:31:48 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LT100APRROYRN@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for pim@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:31:47 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml206-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AEL47982; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:31:46 +0800
Received: from SZXEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.32) by szxeml206-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:31:38 +0800
Received: from Z50128Z (10.108.4.67) by smtpscn.huawei.com (10.82.67.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:31:37 +0800
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:31:37 +0800
From: Vero Zheng <vero.zheng@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.108.4.67]
To: pim@ietf.org
Message-id: <012a01cc8a4b$b0ab0500$12010f00$%zheng@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_FZzdoZcHIPoZwFijnmC9sA)"
Content-language: zh-cn
Thread-index: AcyKS7Axy4CFiYJHRzGoULmDHIVO6w==
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "'Rishabh Parekh (riparekh)'" <riparekh@cisco.com>, "'Stig Venaas (svenaas)'" <svenaas@cisco.com>
Subject: [pim] Collect comments on RFC4601 implementation and deployment survey questionnaire
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:33:50 -0000
Dear WG, This email is to collect comments on RFC4601 implementations and deployments survey questionnaire. We have addressed all the errata (about 110) of RFC4601. Optional features which do not meet RFC2026 requirement have also been identified and removed in the draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601bis-00. We are now planning a survey on RFC4601 implementation and deployment. This survey intends to provide supporting documentation to advance the RFC4601 to Draft Standard as required by IESG. Our survey report will be based on the replies of the questionnaire, which targeting various vendors and operators. We have prepared the questionnaire (as follows), Stig & Mike will send it out to wider communities on behalf of PIM WG later on. Please send your questions or comments on the questionnaire to the list. BR, Jeffery, Rishabh and Vero Questionnaire 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 RFC4601 in 2006. Considering its multiple independent implementations developed and sufficient 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. This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group. Questions for operators: 1 Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network? 2 Are you aware that the PIM-SM deployed is RFC2632 based or RFC4601 based? 3 Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) PIM-SM implementations for your deployment? 4 Have you encountered any inter-operability or backward-compatibility issues amongst differing implementations? If yes, what are your concerns about these issues? 5 Have you deployed different multicast protocols in different parts of your network, such as dense mode and sparse mode, where you have multicast routed between the two parts? If yes, do you know if this is done using features such as (*,*,RP) and PMBR? 6 To what extent have you deployed ancillary PIM functionality, like e.g. BSR, SSM, and Explicit Tracking? 7 Do you have any other comments on PIM-SM deployment in your network? Questions for implementers: 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, e.g. Border bit for PIM registers, Explicit tracking, Hashing of group to RP mappings, IPv6 register PMTUD and Register DSCP/ECN bits? 6 Have you done any inter-operatibility trials with other PIM-SM implementations based on RFC 4601 or RFC 2362? If yes, have you encountered any issues during these trials? 7 Do you have any other comments or concerns about PIM-SM as specified in RFC4601?