[154013] in North American Network Operators' Group
PIM survey for operators
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike McBride)
Thu Jun 21 02:01:27 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAL3FGfyE0LoofX44knWKUk9YqrROuJVH3nfj8EmKCo7gjKgDhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:00:15 -0700
From: Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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 operators. 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. =A0The protocol was classified as Experimental in
both of these documents. =A0The 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. =A0This 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. =A0Draft Standard
is no longer used.)
This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group.
The responses will be collected by a neutral third-party and kept
strictly confidential; only the final combined results will be
published. =A0Marshall Eubanks has agreed to anonymize the response
to this Questionnaire. =A0Marshall has a long experience with
Multicast but has no direct financial interest in this matter,
nor ties to any of the vendors involved. =A0He is also a member of
the IAOC, Chair of the IETF Trust and co-chair of the IETF
Layer 3 VPN Working Group. =A0Please send Questionnaire responses
to his email address, marshall.eubanks@gmail.com. =A0He requests
that such responses include the string "RFC 4601 bis Questionnaire" in
the subject field.
Before answering the questions, please comple the following background
information.
Name of the Respondent:
Affliation/Organization:
Contact Email:
Provide description of PIM deployment:
Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential:
Questions:
1 =A0 =A0 =A0 Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network?
2 =A0 =A0 =A0 How long have you had PIM-SM deployed in your network?
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Do you know if your deployment is based on the most recent
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0RFC4601?
3 =A0 =A0 =A0 Have you deployed PIM-SM for IPv6 in your network?
4 =A0 =A0 =A0 Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) PIM-SM
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0implementations for your deployment?
5 =A0 =A0 =A0 Have you encountered any inter-operability or backward-
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0compatibility issues amongst differing implementations?
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0If yes, what are your concerns about these issues?
6 =A0 =A0 =A0 Have you deployed both dense mode and sparse mode in your
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0network?
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0If yes, do you route between these modes using features such
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0as *,*,RP or PMBR?
7 =A0 =A0 =A0 To what extent have you deployed PIM functionality, like BSR,
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0SSM, and Explicit Tracking?
8 =A0 =A0 =A0 Which RP mapping mechanism do you use: Static, AutoRP, or BSR=
?
9 =A0 =A0 =A0 How many RPs have you deployed in your network?
10 =A0 =A0 =A0If you use Anycast-RP, is it Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446)
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0or Anycast-RP using PIM (RFC 4610)?
11 =A0 =A0 =A0Do you have any other comments on PIM-SM deployment in your
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0network?
