idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (April 23, 2013) is 4014 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4601 (Obsoleted by RFC 7761) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2117 (Obsoleted by RFC 2362) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2362 (Obsoleted by RFC 4601, RFC 5059) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group L. Zheng 3 Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies 4 Intended status: Informational Z. Zhang 5 Expires: October 23, 2013 Juniper Networks 6 R. Parekh 7 Cisco Systems 8 April 23, 2013 10 Survey Report on PIM-SM Implementations and Deployments 11 draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt 13 Abstract 15 This document provides supporting documentation to advance the 16 Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) 17 protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. 19 Status of this Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 23, 2013. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 1.1. Overview of PIM-SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 1.2. RFC2026 and RFC6410 Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2. Survey on Implementations and Deployments . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 2.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 2.2. Operator Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2.2.1. Description of PIM Sparse-Mode deployments . . . . . . 4 61 2.2.2. PIM Sparse-Mode deployment with other multicast 62 technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 2.2.3. PIM Sparse-Mode RPs and RP Discovery mechanisms . . . 4 64 2.3. Vendor Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 2.3.1. RFC4601 and RFC2362 implementations . . . . . . . . . 5 66 2.3.2. Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementations . . . . . . 5 67 2.3.3. Implementations of other features of RFC4601 . . . . . 5 68 2.4. Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 74 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 76 6. Appendix A. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 6.1. Appendix A.1 PIM Survey for Operators . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 6.2. Appendix A.2 PIM Survey for Implementors . . . . . . . . . 11 80 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 82 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 84 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 86 1. Motivation 88 1.1. Overview of PIM-SM 90 PIM-SM was first published as [RFC2117] in 1997 and then again as 91 [RFC2362] in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in 92 both of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol specification was then 93 rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as [RFC4601] in 94 2006. Considering its multiple independent implementations developed 95 and sufficient successful operational experience gained, the IETF has 96 decided to advance the PIM-SM protocol to Internet Standard. 98 1.2. RFC2026 and RFC6410 Requirements 100 [RFC2026] defines the stages in the standardization process, the 101 requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of 102 documents used during this process. Section 4.1.2 of [RFC2026] 103 states that:"The requirement for at least two independent and 104 interoperable implementations applies to all of the options and 105 features of the specification. In cases in which one or more options 106 or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable 107 implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard 108 level only if those options or features are removed." 110 [RFC6410] updates the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) 111 Standards Process defined in [RFC2026]. Primarily, it reduces the 112 Standards Process from three Standards Track maturity levels to two. 113 The second maturity level is a merger of Draft Standard and Standard 114 as specified in [RFC2026]. Section 2.2 of [RFC6410] states that:"(1) 115 There are at least two independent interoperating implementations 116 with widespread deployment and successful operational experience. (3) 117 There are no unused features in the specification that greatly 118 increase implementation complexity." 120 Optional features which do not meet the foresaid criteria has been 121 identified by the PIM Working Group and will be removed. This 122 document intends to provide supporting documentation to advance the 123 Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) 124 protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. 126 2. Survey on Implementations and Deployments 128 2.1. Methodology 130 A questionnaire had been issued by the PIM WG co-chairs and announced 131 widely to the vendors and operational community to obtain information 132 on PIM-SM implementations and deployments. The Survey concluded on 133 22nd Oct 2012. The responses will be kept strictly confidential and 134 only combined results will be published. The raw questionnaire will 135 be shown in Appendix A, and a detailed summary of the responses will 136 be included in the following section. 138 2.2. Operator Responses 140 Nine operators responded to the survey. They are SWITCH, National 141 Research Council Canada, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 142 Motorola Solutions and five other anonymous operators. 144 2.2.1. Description of PIM Sparse-Mode deployments 146 In the last fourteen years, PIM-SM has been deployed for a wide 147 variety of applications: Campus, Enterprise, Research and WAN 148 networks, Broadband ISP and Digital TV. There are five deployments 149 based on [RFC4601]implementation and two on [RFC2362] 150 implementations. PIM-SM for IPv6 has been deployed by three 151 operators. Out of the nine operators, six have deployed PIM-SM 152 implementations from multiple vendors. 154 Operators reported minor inter-operability issues and these were 155 addressed by the vendors. There was no major inter-operability 156 concern reported by the operators. 158 2.2.2. PIM Sparse-Mode deployment with other multicast technologies 160 Except for one deployment of PIM Sparse-Mode with Multicast OSPF 161 (MOSPF), all other operators have deployed PIM-SM exclusively. No 162 operators acknowledged deployments of either (*,*,RP) or PIM Multicast 163 Border Route (PMBR) for inter-connection between PIM Sparse-Mode and 164 other multicast domains. 166 2.2.3. PIM Sparse-Mode RPs and RP Discovery mechanisms 168 The number of Sparse-Mode RPs deployed by operators range from a few 169 (up to sixteen) to a massively scaled number (four hundred). Both 170 static configuration and Bootstrap Router (BSR) have been deployed as 171 RP discovery mechanisms. 173 Anycast-RP has been deployed for RP redundancy. Two operator have 174 deployed Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446). Three operators have deployed 175 Anycast-RP using both MSDP (RFC 3446) and PIM (RFC 4610) for different 176 scenarios. The best common practice seems to be to use 177 static-RP configuration with Anycast-RP for redundancy. 179 2.3. Vendor Responses 181 Eight vendors have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations. They 182 are XORP, Huawei Technologies, Cisco Systems, Motorola Solutions, 183 Juniper Networks and three other anonymous vendors. 185 2.3.1. RFC4601 and RFC2362 implementations 187 Four vendors have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations based on 188 RFC 4601 and two have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations 189 based on RFC 2362. Two other reported implementations are hybrid. 191 Minor inter-operability issues have been addressed by the vendors 192 over the years and no concern was reported by any vendor. 194 2.3.2. Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementations 196 Most vendors have not implemented (*,*,RP) state as specified in 197 [RFC4601] either due to lack of deployment requirements or due to 198 security concerns. Similarly, most vendors have also not implemented 199 PMBR due to lack of deployment requirements or because it was 200 considered to be too complex and non-scalable. 202 Only one vendor, XORP, reported (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementation and 203 they were implemented just because these were part of the [RFC4601] 204 specification. 206 2.3.3. Implementations of other features of RFC4601 208 Most vendors have implemented all of the following from [RFC4601] 209 specifications: 211 - SSM 213 - Join Suppression 215 - Explicit tracking 217 - Register mechanism 219 - SPT switchover at last-hop router 221 - Assert mechanism 222 - Hashing of group to RP mappings 224 Some vendors do not implement explicit tracking and SSM. 226 2.4. Key Findings 228 1. PIM Sparse-Mode has been widely implemented and deployed for 229 different applications. The PIM Sparse-Mode protocol is sufficiently 230 well specified in RFC 4601 resulting in inter-operable implementation 231 deployed by operators. 233 2. There are no deployments and only one known implementation of 234 (*,*,RP) and PMBR as specified in RFC 4601. Hence, it is necessary 235 to remove these features from the specification as required by 236 [RFC2026] and [RFC6410] 238 3. Security Considerations 240 This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet. 242 4. IANA Considerations 244 This document makes no request of the IANA. 246 5. Acknowledgements 248 The authors would like to thanks Tim Chown and Bill Atwood who had 249 helped to collect and anonymize the responses as the neutral third- 250 party. Special thanks are also given to Alexander Gall, William F 251 Maton Sotomayor, Steve Bauer, Sonum Mathur, Pavlin Radoslavov, Shuxue 252 Fan, Sameer Gulrajani and to the anonymous responders. 254 6. Appendix A. Questionnaire 256 This appendix reproduces a questionnaire that was made available for 257 operators and vendors to express their experience and considerations. 259 6.1. Appendix A.1 PIM Survey for Operators 261 Introduction: 263 PIM-SM was first published as RFC2117 in 1997 and then again as 264 RFC2362 in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in both 265 of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol specification was then 266 rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as RFC4601 in 267 2006. Considering the multiple independent implementations developed 268 and the successful operational experience gained, the IETF has 269 decided to advance the PIM-SM routing protocol to Draft Standard. 270 This survey intends to provide supporting documentation to advance 271 the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing 272 protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. (Due to 273 RFC6410, now the intention is to progress it to Internet Standard. 274 Draft Standard is no longer used.) 276 This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group. 278 The responses will be collected by a neutral third-party and kept 279 strictly confidential if requested in the response; only the final 280 combined results will be published. Tim Chown and Bill Atwood have 281 agreed to anonymize the response to this Questionnaire. They have a 282 long experience with multicast but have no direct financial interest 283 in this matter, nor ties to any of the vendors involved. Tim is 284 working at University of Southampton, UK, and he has been active in 285 the IETF for many years, including the mboned working group, and he 286 is a co-chair of the 6renum working group. Bill is at Concordia 287 University, Montreal, Canada, and he has been an active participant 288 in the IETF pim working group for over ten years, especially in the 289 area of security. 291 Please send questionnaire responses addressed to them both. The 292 addresses are tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk and william.atwood@concordia.ca. 293 Please include the string "RFC4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject 294 field. 296 Before answering the questions, please complete the following 297 background information. 299 Name of the Respondent: 301 Affiliation/Organization: 303 Contact Email: 305 Provide description of PIM deployment: 307 Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential: 309 Questions: 311 1 Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network? 313 2 How long have you had PIM-SM deployed in your network? Do you know 314 if your deployment is based on the most recent RFC4601? 316 3 Have you deployed PIM-SM for IPv6 in your network? 318 4 Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) PIM-SM 319 implementations for your deployment? 321 5 Have you encountered any inter-operability or backward- 322 compatibility issues amongst differing implementations? If yes, what 323 are your concerns about these issues? 325 6 Have you deployed both dense mode and sparse mode in your network? 326 If yes, do you route between these modes using features such as 327 *,*,RP or PMBR? 329 7 To what extent have you deployed PIM functionality, like BSR, SSM, 330 and Explicit Tracking? 332 8 Which RP mapping mechanism do you use: Static, AutoRP, or BSR? 334 9 How many RPs have you deployed in your network? 336 10 If you use Anycast-RP, is it Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446) or 337 Anycast-RP using PIM (RFC4610)? 339 11 Do you have any other comments on PIM-SM deployment in your 340 network? 342 6.2. Appendix A.2 PIM Survey for Implementors 344 Introduction: 346 PIM-SM was first published as RFC2117 in 1997 and then again as 347 RFC2362 in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in both 348 of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol specification was then 349 rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as RFC4601 in 350 2006. Considering the multiple independent implementations developed 351 and the successful operational experience gained, the IETF has 352 decided to advance the PIM-SM routing protocol to Draft Standard. 353 This survey intends to provide supporting documentation to advance 354 the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing 355 protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. (Due to 356 RFC6410, now the intention is to progress it to Internet Standard. 357 Draft Standard is no longer used.) 359 This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group. 361 The responses will be collected by a neutral third-party and kept 362 strictly confidential if requested in the response; only the final 363 combined results will be published. Tim Chown and Bill Atwood have 364 agreed to anonymize the response to this Questionnaire. They have a 365 long experience with multicast but have no direct financial interest 366 in this matter, nor ties to any of the vendors involved. Tim is 367 working at University of Southampton, UK, and he has been active in 368 the IETF for many years, including the mboned working group, and he 369 is a co-chair of the 6renum working group. Bill is at Concordia 370 University, Montreal, Canada, and he has been an active participant 371 in the IETF pim working group for over ten years, especially in the 372 area of security. 374 Please send questionnaire responses addressed to them both. The 375 addresses are tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk and william.atwood@concordia.ca. 376 Please include the string "RFC 4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject 377 field. 379 Before answering the questions, please complete the following 380 background information. 382 Name of the Respondent: 384 Affiliation/Organization: 386 Contact Email: 388 Provide description of PIM implementation: 390 Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential: 392 Questions: 394 1 Have you implemented PIM-SM? 396 2 Is the PIM-SM implementation based on RFC2362 or RFC4601? 398 3 Have you implemented (*,*, RP) state of RFC4601? What is the 399 rationale behind implementing or omitting (*,*,RP)? 401 4 Have you implemented the PMBR as specified in RFC4601 and RFC2715? 402 What is the rationale behind implementing or omitting PMBR? 404 5 Have you implemented other features and functions of RFC4601: 406 - SSM 408 - Join Suppression 410 - Explicit tracking 412 - Register mechanism 414 - SPT switchover at last-hop router 416 - Assert mechanism 418 - Hashing of group to RP mappings 420 6 Does your PIM-SM implementation support IPv6? 422 7 Have you encountered any inter-operability issues with other PIM 423 implementations in trials or in the field? 425 8 Do you have any other comments or concerns about PIM-SM as 426 specified in RFC4601? 428 7. References 430 7.1. Normative References 432 [RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, 433 "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): 434 Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006. 436 7.2. Informative References 438 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 439 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 441 [RFC2117] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering, 442 S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P., and L. 443 Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): 444 Protocol Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997. 446 [RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering, 447 S., Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "Protocol Independent 448 Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", 449 RFC 2362, June 1998. 451 [RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the 452 Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410, 453 October 2011. 455 Authors' Addresses 457 Lianshu Zheng 458 Huawei Technologies 459 China 461 Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com 463 Zhaohui Zhang 464 Juniper Networks 465 USA 467 Email: zzhang@juniper.net 469 Rishabh Parekh 470 Cisco Systems 471 USA 473 Email: riparekh@cisco.com