WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
Thanks Lenny for the comments. For the first question, we believe it has been covered by Q7, though not directly. For the second question, even though we don't feel it really help with the main goal, but we have incorporated in the questionnaire since there's interests.
The final questionnaire is attached.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stig Venaas [mailto:stig@...]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 5:32 AM
> To: Vero Zheng
> Cc: pim@...; Rishabh Parekh (riparekh); Mike McBride; Marshall Eubanks
> Subject: Re: [pim] Collect Comments on RFC4601 Implementations and
> Deployments Survey Questionnaire Revision
> Please read carefully what Vero posted and see if anything should be
> changed. If no comments are received by March 22nd, the current survey
> text will be sent out to implementers/vendors and operators to get
> their information.
> It is important that we get the information we want, so if you have any
> thoughts on this survey, please provide your input before March 22nd.
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 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, we are now trying 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, marshall.eubanks@.... He requests that such responses include the string "RFC 4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject field.
Questions for operators:
1 Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network?
2 How long have you had PIM-SM deployed in your network? Do you know if your deployment is based on the most recent RFC4601?
3 Have you deployed PIM-SM for IPv6 in your network?
4 Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) PIM-SM implementations for your deployment?
5 Have you encountered any inter-operability or backward-compatibility issues amongst differing implementations? If yes, what are your concerns about these issues?
6 Have you deployed both dense mode and sparse mode in your network? If yes, do you route between these modes using features such as *,*,RP or PMBR?
7 To what extent have you deployed PIM functionality, like e.g. BSR, SSM, and Explicit Tracking?
8 How many RPs have you deployed in your network?
9 If you use Anycast-RP, is it Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446) or Anycast-RP using PIM (RFC 4610)?
10 Do you have any other comments on PIM-SM deployment in your network?
Questions for implementors:
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.
- 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?