PIM Working Group M. Mishra
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Informational T. Eckert
Expires: September 29, 2019 Huawei
H. Asaeda
NICT
A. Peter
O. Komolafe
Arista
S. Babu
Juniper
N. Leymann
DT
R. Josyula
Arris
T. Winters
UNH
March 28, 2019
IGMP and MLD Questionnaire
draft-eckert-pim-igmp-mld-questionnaire-00
Abstract
This document provides questionnaire to advance the IGMPv2, IGMPv3,
and MLD v2 from Proposed standard to the Internet Standard.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 29, 2019.
Mishra, et al. Expires September 29, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IGMP and MLD Questionnaire March 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Procedures Followed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Intended Recipients of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Processing of Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Implementation Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Questionnaire for Network Operators . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1. Deployment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Deployment Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) [RFC3376] and
Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6 [RFC3810] are
currently Proposed Standards. Given the fact that multiple
independent implementations of these protocols exist and they have
been successfully and widely used operationally, the PIM WG is keen
to progress these protocols to Internet Standards. In order to
facilitate this effort, it is critical to establish if there are
features specified in [RFC3376] and [RFC3810] that have not been
widely used and also to determine any interoperability issues that
have arisen from using the protocols.
Mishra, et al. Expires September 29, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IGMP and MLD Questionnaire March 2019
Following approach taken for PIM-SM, documented in [RFC7063], the PIM
WG has decided that conducting a comprehensive survey on
implementations and deployment of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 will provide
valuable information to facilitate their progression to Internet
Standard.
This document describes the procedures proposed for conducting the
survey and introduces the proposed questions.
2. Procedures Followed
2.1. Methodology
The PIM WG Chairs will officially kick off the survey and distribute
the questionnaire and pertinent information through appropriate
forums, aiming to ensure the questionnaire reaches as wide an
audience as possible.
2.2. Intended Recipients of Questionnaire
1. Network operators
2. Router vendors
3. Switch vendors
4. Host implementors
2.3. Processing of Responses
Responses received will remain confidential. Only the aggregated
results will be published and so it will be impossible to identify
the contributions by individual operators, vendors or implementors.
Furthermore, an option to submit the completed questionnaire
anonymously will be available.
3. Questionnaire
3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors
Name:
Affiliation/Organization:
Contact Email:
Do you wish to keep your name and affiliation confidential?: Y/N
Mishra, et al. Expires September 29, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IGMP and MLD Questionnaire March 2019
3.1.1. Implementation Status
Which of the following have you implemented? And for how long has it
been implemented?
1. IGMPv1 [RFC1112] implemented?: Y/N, since:
2. IGMPv2 [RFC2236] implemented?: Y/N, since:
3. IGMPv3 [RFC3376] implemented?: Y/N, since:
4. Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790] Implemented: Y/N, since:
5. MLDv1 [RFC2710] implemented?: Y/N, since:
6. MLDv2 [RFC3810] implemented?: Y/N, since:
7. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] implemented?: Y/N, since:
3.1.2. Implementation Specifics
1. Which IGMPv3 features have you implemented?
2. Which MLDv2 features have you implemented?
3. Have you carried out IGMPv3 or MLDv2 interoperability tests with
other implementations? (What issues arose during these tests?)
(How could the standards have help minimize these issues?)
3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives
1. What feature(s) has been deliberately omitted from IGMPv3 or
MLDv2 implementations? (because you think it is sub-optimal or
potentially has significant disadvantages/issues?) (because of
insufficient demand/use cases?)
2. Which ambiguities or inconsistencies in RFC 3376 or RFC 3810 made
the implementation challenging?
3. What suggestions would you make to the PIM WG as it seeks to
update these documents?
3.2. Questionnaire for Network Operators
Name:
Affiliation/Organization:
Mishra, et al. Expires September 29, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IGMP and MLD Questionnaire March 2019
Contact Email:
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?: Y/N, since:
2. IGMPv2 [RFC2236] deployed?: Y/N, since:
3. IGMPv3 [RFC3376] deployed?: Y/N, since:
4. Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790] Implemented: Y/N, since:
5. MLDv1 [RFC2710] deployed?: Y/N, since:
6. MLDv2 [RFC3810] deployed?: Y/N, since:
7. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] deployed?: Y/N, since:
3.2.2. Deployment Specifics
1. Which IGMPv3 features are in use? (Is Exclude mode with source
list in use?)
2. Which MLDv2 features are in use? (Is Exclude mode with source
list in use?)
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?)
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?)
3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives
1. What have you found to be the strengths of IGMPv3/MLDv2?
2. What have you found to be the weaknesses of IGMPv3/MLDv2?
Mishra, et al. Expires September 29, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IGMP and MLD Questionnaire March 2019
3. What suggestions would you make to the PIM WG as it seeks to
update these documents?
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting",
RFC 1112, August 1989.
[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
2", RFC 2236, November 1997.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October
1999.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790,
February 2010.
4.2. Informative References
[RFC7063] Zheng, L., Zhang, Z., and R. Parekh, "Survey Report on
Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
Implementations and Deployments", RFC 7063, December 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Mankamana Mishra
Cisco Systems
Email: mankamis@cisco.com
Toerless Eckert
Huawei Technologies
Email: tte@cs.fau.de
Mishra, et al. Expires September 29, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IGMP and MLD Questionnaire March 2019
Hitoshi Asaeda
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp
Anish Peter
Olufemi Komolafe
Arista
Suneesh Babu
Juniper
Nicolai Leymann
DT
Ramakanth Josyula
Arris
Timothy Winters
UNH
Mishra, et al. Expires September 29, 2019 [Page 7]