idnits 2.17.1 draft-eckert-pim-igmp-mld-questionnaire-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 28, 2019) is 1854 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PIM Working Group M. Mishra 3 Internet-Draft Cisco 4 Intended status: Informational T. Eckert 5 Expires: September 29, 2019 Huawei 6 H. Asaeda 7 NICT 8 A. Peter 10 O. Komolafe 11 Arista 12 S. Babu 13 Juniper 14 N. Leymann 15 DT 16 R. Josyula 17 Arris 18 T. Winters 19 UNH 20 March 28, 2019 22 IGMP and MLD Questionnaire 23 draft-eckert-pim-igmp-mld-questionnaire-00 25 Abstract 27 This document provides questionnaire to advance the IGMPv2, IGMPv3, 28 and MLD v2 from Proposed standard to the Internet Standard. 30 Status of This Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 33 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 36 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 37 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 38 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 41 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 42 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 43 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 29, 2019. 47 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 54 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 55 publication of this document. Please review these documents 56 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 57 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 58 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 59 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 60 described in the Simplified BSD License. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 65 2. Procedures Followed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 2.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 2.2. Intended Recipients of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 2.3. Processing of Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 3. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors . . . . . 3 71 3.1.1. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 3.1.2. Implementation Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 74 3.2. Questionnaire for Network Operators . . . . . . . . . . . 4 75 3.2.1. Deployment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 3.2.2. Deployment Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 79 4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 81 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 83 1. Introduction 85 Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) [RFC3376] and 86 Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6 [RFC3810] are 87 currently Proposed Standards. Given the fact that multiple 88 independent implementations of these protocols exist and they have 89 been successfully and widely used operationally, the PIM WG is keen 90 to progress these protocols to Internet Standards. In order to 91 facilitate this effort, it is critical to establish if there are 92 features specified in [RFC3376] and [RFC3810] that have not been 93 widely used and also to determine any interoperability issues that 94 have arisen from using the protocols. 96 Following approach taken for PIM-SM, documented in [RFC7063], the PIM 97 WG has decided that conducting a comprehensive survey on 98 implementations and deployment of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 will provide 99 valuable information to facilitate their progression to Internet 100 Standard. 102 This document describes the procedures proposed for conducting the 103 survey and introduces the proposed questions. 105 2. Procedures Followed 107 2.1. Methodology 109 The PIM WG Chairs will officially kick off the survey and distribute 110 the questionnaire and pertinent information through appropriate 111 forums, aiming to ensure the questionnaire reaches as wide an 112 audience as possible. 114 2.2. Intended Recipients of Questionnaire 116 1. Network operators 118 2. Router vendors 120 3. Switch vendors 122 4. Host implementors 124 2.3. Processing of Responses 126 Responses received will remain confidential. Only the aggregated 127 results will be published and so it will be impossible to identify 128 the contributions by individual operators, vendors or implementors. 129 Furthermore, an option to submit the completed questionnaire 130 anonymously will be available. 132 3. Questionnaire 134 3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors 136 Name: 138 Affiliation/Organization: 140 Contact Email: 142 Do you wish to keep your name and affiliation confidential?: Y/N 144 3.1.1. Implementation Status 146 Which of the following have you implemented? And for how long has it 147 been implemented? 149 1. IGMPv1 [RFC1112] implemented?: Y/N, since: 151 2. IGMPv2 [RFC2236] implemented?: Y/N, since: 153 3. IGMPv3 [RFC3376] implemented?: Y/N, since: 155 4. Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790] Implemented: Y/N, since: 157 5. MLDv1 [RFC2710] implemented?: Y/N, since: 159 6. MLDv2 [RFC3810] implemented?: Y/N, since: 161 7. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] implemented?: Y/N, since: 163 3.1.2. Implementation Specifics 165 1. Which IGMPv3 features have you implemented? 167 2. Which MLDv2 features have you implemented? 169 3. Have you carried out IGMPv3 or MLDv2 interoperability tests with 170 other implementations? (What issues arose during these tests?) 171 (How could the standards have help minimize these issues?) 173 3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives 175 1. What feature(s) has been deliberately omitted from IGMPv3 or 176 MLDv2 implementations? (because you think it is sub-optimal or 177 potentially has significant disadvantages/issues?) (because of 178 insufficient demand/use cases?) 180 2. Which ambiguities or inconsistencies in RFC 3376 or RFC 3810 made 181 the implementation challenging? 183 3. What suggestions would you make to the PIM WG as it seeks to 184 update these documents? 186 3.2. Questionnaire for Network Operators 188 Name: 190 Affiliation/Organization: 192 Contact Email: 194 Do you wish to keep your name and affiliation confidential?: 196 3.2.1. Deployment Status 198 Which of the following are currently deployed in your network? And 199 for how long has it been deployed? 201 1. IGMPv1 [RFC1112] deployed?: Y/N, since: 203 2. IGMPv2 [RFC2236] deployed?: Y/N, since: 205 3. IGMPv3 [RFC3376] deployed?: Y/N, since: 207 4. Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790] Implemented: Y/N, since: 209 5. MLDv1 [RFC2710] deployed?: Y/N, since: 211 6. MLDv2 [RFC3810] deployed?: Y/N, since: 213 7. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] deployed?: Y/N, since: 215 3.2.2. Deployment Specifics 217 1. Which IGMPv3 features are in use? (Is Exclude mode with source 218 list in use?) 220 2. Which MLDv2 features are in use? (Is Exclude mode with source 221 list in use?) 223 3. Does your network rely on the fallback mechanism between 224 different IGMP versions? (Between which IGMP versions?) (What 225 is your experience with this fallback mechanism?) 227 4. Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) 228 implementations for your deployment? (Have you encountered any 229 inter-operability or backward-compatibility issues amongst 230 differing implementations?) (What are your concerns about these 231 issues?) 233 3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives 235 1. What have you found to be the strengths of IGMPv3/MLDv2? 237 2. What have you found to be the weaknesses of IGMPv3/MLDv2? 238 3. What suggestions would you make to the PIM WG as it seeks to 239 update these documents? 241 4. References 243 4.1. Normative References 245 [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", 246 RFC 1112, August 1989. 248 [RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 249 2", RFC 2236, November 1997. 251 [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A. 252 Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 253 3", RFC 3376, October 2002. 255 [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast 256 Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 257 1999. 259 [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery 260 Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. 262 [RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet 263 Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast 264 Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790, 265 February 2010. 267 4.2. Informative References 269 [RFC7063] Zheng, L., Zhang, Z., and R. Parekh, "Survey Report on 270 Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) 271 Implementations and Deployments", RFC 7063, December 2013. 273 Authors' Addresses 275 Mankamana Mishra 276 Cisco Systems 278 Email: mankamis@cisco.com 280 Toerless Eckert 281 Huawei Technologies 283 Email: tte@cs.fau.de 284 Hitoshi Asaeda 285 National Institute of Information and Communications Technology 287 Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp 289 Anish Peter 291 Olufemi Komolafe 292 Arista 294 Suneesh Babu 295 Juniper 297 Nicolai Leymann 298 DT 300 Ramakanth Josyula 301 Arris 303 Timothy Winters 304 UNH