idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02.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 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 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 (June 5, 2013) is 3978 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: December 5, 2013 Juniper Networks 6 R. Parekh 7 Cisco Systems 8 June 5, 2013 10 Survey Report on PIM-SM Implementations and Deployments 11 draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-02.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 December 5, 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 87 1.1. Overview of PIM-SM 89 PIM-SM was first published as [RFC2117] in 1997 and then again as 90 [RFC2362] in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in 91 both of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol specification was then 92 rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as [RFC4601] in 93 2006. Considering its multiple independent implementations developed 94 and sufficient successful operational experience gained, the PIM WG 95 decided to advance the PIM-SM protocol to Internet Standard and the 96 survey and this document are part of the work. 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 combination 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 that do not meet the aforesaid criteria have 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 Internet Standard. 126 2. Survey on Implementations and Deployments 128 2.1. Methodology 130 A questionnaire was 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 are kept confidential and only combined 134 results are published here, while responders chose whether their 135 affilations are confidential. The raw questionnaire 136 is shown in Appendix A, and a compilation of the responses is 137 included in the following section. 139 2.2. Operator Responses 141 Nine operators responded to the survey. They are SWITCH, National 142 Research Council Canada, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 143 Motorola Solutions and five other anonymous operators. 145 2.2.1. Description of PIM Sparse-Mode deployments 147 In the last fourteen years, PIM-SM has been deployed for a wide 148 variety of applications: Campus, Enterprise, Research and WAN 149 networks, Broadband ISP and Digital TV. There are five deployments 150 based on [RFC4601] implementations and two on [RFC2362] 151 implementations. PIM-SM for IPv6 has been deployed by three 152 operators. Out of the nine operators, six have deployed PIM-SM 153 implementations from multiple vendors. 155 Operators reported minor inter-operability issues and these were 156 addressed by the vendors. There was no major inter-operability 157 concern reported by the operators. 159 2.2.2. PIM Sparse-Mode deployment with other multicast technologies 161 Except for one deployment of PIM Sparse-Mode with Multicast OSPF 162 (MOSPF), all other operators have deployed PIM-SM exclusively. No 163 operators acknowledged deployments of either (*,*,RP) or PIM Multicast 164 Border Route (PMBR) for inter-connection between PIM Sparse-Mode and 165 other multicast domains. 167 2.2.3. PIM Sparse-Mode RPs and RP Discovery mechanisms 169 The number of Sparse-Mode RPs deployed by operators range from a few 170 (up to sixteen) to a massively scaled number (four hundred). Both 171 static configuration and Bootstrap Router (BSR) have been deployed as 172 RP discovery mechanisms. 174 Anycast-RP has been deployed for RP redundancy. Two operators have 175 deployed Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446). Three operators have deployed 176 Anycast-RP using both MSDP (RFC 3446) and PIM (RFC 4610) for different 177 scenarios. The best common practice seems to be to use 178 static-RP configuration with Anycast-RP for redundancy. 180 2.3. Vendor Responses 182 Eight vendors have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations. They 183 are XORP, Huawei Technologies, Cisco Systems, Motorola Solutions, 184 Juniper Networks and three other anonymous vendors. 186 2.3.1. RFC4601 and RFC2362 implementations 188 Four vendors have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations based on 189 RFC 4601 and two have reported PIM Sparse-Mode implementations 190 based on RFC 2362. Two other reported implementations are hybrid. 192 Minor inter-operability issues have been addressed by the vendors 193 over the years and no concern was reported by any vendor. 195 2.3.2. Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementations 197 Most vendors have not implemented (*,*,RP) state as specified in 198 [RFC4601] either due to lack of deployment requirements or due to 199 security concerns. Similarly, most vendors have also not implemented 200 PMBR due to lack of deployment requirements or because it was 201 considered to be too complex and non-scalable. 203 Only one vendor, XORP, reported (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementation and 204 they were implemented just because these were part of the [RFC4601] 205 specification. 207 2.3.3. Implementations of other features of RFC4601 209 Most vendors have implemented all of the following from [RFC4601] 210 specifications: 212 - SSM 214 - Join suppression 216 - Explicit tracking 218 - Register mechanism 220 - SPT switchover at last-hop router 222 - Assert mechanism 223 - Hashing of group to RP mappings 225 Some vendors do not implement explicit tracking and SSM. 227 2.4. Key Findings 229 1. PIM Sparse-Mode has been widely implemented and deployed for 230 different applications. The PIM Sparse-Mode protocol is sufficiently 231 well specified in RFC 4601 resulting in inter-operable implementation 232 deployed by operators. 234 2. There are no deployments and only one known implementation of 235 (*,*,RP) and PMBR as specified in RFC 4601. Hence, it is necessary 236 to remove these features from the specification as required by 237 [RFC2026] and [RFC6410]. 239 3. Security Considerations 241 This document does not directly affect the security of the Internet. 243 4. IANA Considerations 245 This document makes no request of the IANA. 247 5. Acknowledgements 249 The authors would like to thanks Tim Chown and Bill Atwood who had 250 helped to collect and anonymize the responses as the neutral third- 251 party. Special thanks are also given to Alexander Gall, William F 252 Maton Sotomayor, Steve Bauer, Sonum Mathur, Pavlin Radoslavov, Shuxue 253 Fan, Sameer Gulrajani and to the anonymous responders. 255 6. Appendix A. Questionnaire 257 This appendix reproduces a questionnaire that was made available for 258 operators and vendors to express their experience and considerations. 260 6.1. Appendix A.1 PIM Survey for Operators 262 Introduction: 264 PIM-SM was first published as RFC2117 in 1997 and then again as 265 RFC2362 in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in both 266 of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol specification was then 267 rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as RFC4601 in 268 2006. Considering the multiple independent implementations developed 269 and the successful operational experience gained, the IETF has 270 decided to advance the PIM-SM routing protocol to Draft Standard. 271 This survey intends to provide supporting documentation to advance 272 the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing 273 protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. (Due to 274 RFC6410, now the intention is to progress it to Internet Standard. 275 Draft Standard is no longer used.) 277 This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group. 279 The responses will be collected by a neutral third-party and kept 280 strictly confidential if requested in the response; only the final 281 combined results will be published. Tim Chown and Bill Atwood have 282 agreed to anonymize the response to this Questionnaire. They have a 283 long experience with multicast but have no direct financial interest 284 in this matter, nor ties to any of the vendors involved. Tim is 285 working at University of Southampton, UK, and he has been active in 286 the IETF for many years, including the mboned working group, and he 287 is a co-chair of the 6renum working group. Bill is at Concordia 288 University, Montreal, Canada, and he has been an active participant 289 in the IETF pim working group for over ten years, especially in the 290 area of security. 292 Please send questionnaire responses addressed to them both. The 293 addresses are tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk and william.atwood@concordia.ca. 294 Please include the string "RFC4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject 295 field. 297 Before answering the questions, please complete the following 298 background information. 300 Name of the Respondent: 302 Affiliation/Organization: 304 Contact Email: 306 Provide description of PIM deployment: 308 Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential: 310 Questions: 312 1 Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network? 314 2 How long have you had PIM-SM deployed in your network? Do you know 315 if your deployment is based on the most recent RFC4601? 317 3 Have you deployed PIM-SM for IPv6 in your network? 319 4 Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) PIM-SM 320 implementations for your deployment? 322 5 Have you encountered any inter-operability or backward- 323 compatibility issues amongst differing implementations? If yes, what 324 are your concerns about these issues? 326 6 Have you deployed both dense mode and sparse mode in your network? 327 If yes, do you route between these modes using features such as 328 *,*,RP or PMBR? 330 7 To what extent have you deployed PIM functionality, like BSR, SSM, 331 and Explicit Tracking? 333 8 Which RP mapping mechanism do you use: Static, AutoRP, or BSR? 335 9 How many RPs have you deployed in your network? 337 10 If you use Anycast-RP, is it Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446) or 338 Anycast-RP using PIM (RFC4610)? 340 11 Do you have any other comments on PIM-SM deployment in your 341 network? 343 6.2. Appendix A.2 PIM Survey for Implementors 345 Introduction: 347 PIM-SM was first published as RFC2117 in 1997 and then again as 348 RFC2362 in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in both 349 of these documents. The PIM-SM protocol specification was then 350 rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as RFC4601 in 351 2006. Considering the multiple independent implementations developed 352 and the successful operational experience gained, the IETF has 353 decided to advance the PIM-SM routing protocol to Draft Standard. 354 This survey intends to provide supporting documentation to advance 355 the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing 356 protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. (Due to 357 RFC6410, now the intention is to progress it to Internet Standard. 358 Draft Standard is no longer used.) 360 This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group. 362 The responses will be collected by a neutral third-party and kept 363 strictly confidential if requested in the response; only the final 364 combined results will be published. Tim Chown and Bill Atwood have 365 agreed to anonymize the response to this Questionnaire. They have a 366 long experience with multicast but have no direct financial interest 367 in this matter, nor ties to any of the vendors involved. Tim is 368 working at University of Southampton, UK, and he has been active in 369 the IETF for many years, including the mboned working group, and he 370 is a co-chair of the 6renum working group. Bill is at Concordia 371 University, Montreal, Canada, and he has been an active participant 372 in the IETF pim working group for over ten years, especially in the 373 area of security. 375 Please send questionnaire responses addressed to them both. The 376 addresses are tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk and william.atwood@concordia.ca. 377 Please include the string "RFC 4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject 378 field. 380 Before answering the questions, please complete the following 381 background information. 383 Name of the Respondent: 385 Affiliation/Organization: 387 Contact Email: 389 Provide description of PIM implementation: 391 Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential: 393 Questions: 395 1 Have you implemented PIM-SM? 397 2 Is the PIM-SM implementation based on RFC2362 or RFC4601? 399 3 Have you implemented (*,*, RP) state of RFC4601? What is the 400 rationale behind implementing or omitting (*,*,RP)? 402 4 Have you implemented the PMBR as specified in RFC4601 and RFC2715? 403 What is the rationale behind implementing or omitting PMBR? 405 5 Have you implemented other features and functions of RFC4601: 407 - SSM 409 - Join Suppression 411 - Explicit tracking 413 - Register mechanism 415 - SPT switchover at last-hop router 417 - Assert mechanism 419 - Hashing of group to RP mappings 421 6 Does your PIM-SM implementation support IPv6? 423 7 Have you encountered any inter-operability issues with other PIM 424 implementations in trials or in the field? 426 8 Do you have any other comments or concerns about PIM-SM as 427 specified in RFC4601? 429 7. References 431 7.1. Normative References 433 [RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, 434 "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): 435 Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006. 437 7.2. Informative References 439 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 440 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 442 [RFC2117] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering, 443 S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P., and L. 444 Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): 445 Protocol Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997. 447 [RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering, 448 S., Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "Protocol Independent 449 Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", 450 RFC 2362, June 1998. 452 [RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the 453 Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410, 454 October 2011. 456 Authors' Addresses 458 Lianshu Zheng 459 Huawei Technologies 460 China 462 Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com 464 Zhaohui Zhang 465 Juniper Networks 466 USA 468 Email: zzhang@juniper.net 470 Rishabh Parekh 471 Cisco Systems 472 USA 474 Email: riparekh@cisco.com