idnits 2.17.1 draft-volunteers-pim-igmp-mld-bis-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 8, 2019) is 1869 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 9, 2019 Huawei 6 H. Asaeda 7 NICT 8 A. Peter 10 O. Komolafe 11 Arista Networks 12 S. Babu 13 Juniper 14 N. Leymann 15 DT 16 R. Josyula 17 Arris 18 T. Winters 19 UNH 20 March 8, 2019 22 IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Survey 23 draft-volunteers-pim-igmp-mld-bis-00 25 Abstract 27 The PIM WG intends to progress IGMPv3 and MLDv2 from Proposed 28 Standards to Internet Standards. This document describes the 29 motivation, procedures and questions proposed for a survey of 30 operators, vendors and implementors of IGMPv3 and MLDv2. The 31 objective of the survey is to collate information to help the PIM WG 32 progress these protocols to Internet Standards. 34 Status of This Memo 36 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 37 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 39 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 40 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 41 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 42 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 44 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 45 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 46 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 47 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 48 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2019. 50 Copyright Notice 52 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 53 document authors. All rights reserved. 55 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 56 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 57 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 58 publication of this document. Please review these documents 59 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 60 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 61 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 62 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 63 described in the Simplified BSD License. 65 Table of Contents 67 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 68 2. Procedures Followed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 2.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 2.2. Intended Recipients of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 3 71 2.3. Processing of Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 72 3. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 73 3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors . . . . . 3 74 3.1.1. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 75 3.1.2. Implementation Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 76 3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 77 3.2. Questionnaire for Network Operators . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 3.2.1. Deployment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 79 3.2.2. Deployment Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 81 4. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 82 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 83 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 84 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 85 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 87 1. Introduction 89 Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) [RFC3376] and 90 Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6 [RFC3810] are 91 currently Proposed Standards. Given the fact that multiple 92 independent implementations of these protocols exist and they have 93 been successfully and widely used operationally, the PIM WG is keen 94 to progress these protocols to Internet Standards. In order to 95 facilitate this effort, it is critical to establish if there are 96 features specified in [RFC3376] and [RFC3810] that have not been 97 widely used and also to determine any interoperability issues that 98 have arisen from using the protocols. 100 Following approach taken for PIM-SM, documented in [RFC7063], the PIM 101 WG has decided that conducting a comprehensive survey on 102 implementations and deployment of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 will provide 103 valuable information to facilitate their progression to Internet 104 Standard. 106 This document describes the procedures proposed for conducting the 107 survey and introduces the proposed questions. 109 2. Procedures Followed 111 2.1. Methodology 113 The PIM WG Chairs will officially kick off the survey and distribute 114 the questionnaire and pertinent information through appropriate 115 forums, aiming to ensure the survey reaches as wide an audience as 116 possible. 118 2.2. Intended Recipients of Questionnaire 120 1. Network operators 122 2. Router vendors 124 3. Switch vendors 126 4. Host implementors 128 2.3. Processing of Responses 130 Responses received will remain confidential. Only the aggregated 131 results will be published and so it will be impossible to identify 132 the contributions by individual operators, vendors or implementors. 133 Furthermore, an option to submit the completed questionnaire 134 anonymously will be available. 136 3. Questionnaire 138 3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors 140 Name: 142 Affiliation/Organization: 144 Contact Email: 146 Do you wish to keep your name and affiliation confidential?: Y/N 148 3.1.1. Implementation Status 150 Which of the following have you implemented? And for how long has it 151 been implemented? 153 1. IGMPv1 [RFC1112] implemented?: Y/N, since: 155 2. IGMPv2 [RFC2236] implemented?: Y/N, since: 157 3. IGMPv3 [RFC3376] implemented?: Y/N, since: 159 4. Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790] Implemented: Y/N, since: 161 5. MLDv1 [RFC2710] implemented?: Y/N, since: 163 6. MLDv2 [RFC3810] implemented?: Y/N, since: 165 7. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] implemented?: Y/N, since: 167 3.1.2. Implementation Specifics 169 1. Which IGMPv3 features have you implemented? 171 2. Which MLDv2 features have you implemented? 173 3. Have you carried out IGMPv3 or MLDv2 interoperability tests with 174 other implementations? (What issues arose during these tests?) 175 (How could the standards have help minimize these issues?) 177 3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives 179 1. What feature(s) has been deliberately omitted from IGMPv3 or 180 MLDv2 implementations? (Because you think it is sub-optimal or 181 potentially has significant disadvantages/issues?) (Because of 182 insufficient demand/use cases?) 184 2. Which ambiguities or inconsistencies in RFC 3376 or RFC 3810 made 185 the implementation challenging? 187 3. What suggestions would you make to the PIM WG as it seeks to 188 progress IGMPv3 and MLDv2 to Internet Standard? 190 3.2. Questionnaire for Network Operators 192 Name: 194 Affiliation/Organization: 196 Contact Email: 198 Do you wish to keep your name and affiliation confidential?: 200 3.2.1. Deployment Status 202 Which of the following are currently deployed in your network? And 203 for how long has it been deployed? 205 1. IGMPv1 [RFC1112] deployed?: Y/N, since: 207 2. IGMPv2 [RFC2236] deployed?: Y/N, since: 209 3. IGMPv3 [RFC3376] deployed?: Y/N, since: 211 4. Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790] Implemented: Y/N, since: 213 5. MLDv1 [RFC2710] deployed?: Y/N, since: 215 6. MLDv2 [RFC3810] deployed?: Y/N, since: 217 7. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] deployed?: Y/N, since: 219 3.2.2. Deployment Specifics 221 1. Which IGMPv3 features are in use? (Is Exclude mode with source 222 list in use?) 224 2. Which MLDv2 features are in use? (Is Exclude mode with source 225 list in use?) 227 3. Does your network rely on the fallback mechanism between 228 different IGMP versions? (Between which IGMP versions?) (What 229 is your experience with this fallback mechanism?) 231 4. Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) 232 implementations for your deployment? (Have you encountered any 233 inter-operability or backward-compatibility issues amongst 234 differing implementations?) (What are your concerns about these 235 issues?) 237 3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives 239 1. What have you found to be the strengths of IGMPv3 or MLDv2? 241 2. What have you found to be the weaknesses of IGMPv3 or MLDv2? 243 3. What suggestions would you make to the PIM WG as it seeks to 244 progress IGMPv3 and MLDv2 to Internet Standard? 246 4. Acknowledgments 248 The authors would like to thank Stig and Mike for valuable review and 249 feedback. 251 5. References 253 5.1. Normative References 255 [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", 256 RFC 1112, August 1989. 258 [RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 259 2", RFC 2236, November 1997. 261 [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A. 262 Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 263 3", RFC 3376, October 2002. 265 [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast 266 Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 267 1999. 269 [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery 270 Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. 272 [RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet 273 Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast 274 Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790, 275 February 2010. 277 5.2. Informative References 279 [RFC7063] Zheng, L., Zhang, Z., and R. Parekh, "Survey Report on 280 Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) 281 Implementations and Deployments", RFC 7063, December 2013. 283 Authors' Addresses 285 Mankamana Mishra 286 Cisco Systems 287 821 Alder Drive 288 Milpitas, CA 95035 289 USA 291 Email: mankamis@cisco.com 293 Toerless Eckert 294 Huawei Technologies 296 Email: tte@cs.fau.de 298 Hitoshi Asaeda 299 National Institute of Information and Communications Technology 301 Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp 303 Anish Peter 305 Email: anish.ietf@gmail.com 307 Olufemi Komolafe 308 Arista Networks 310 Email: femi@arista.com 312 Suneesh Babu 313 Juniper 315 Email: suneesh@juniper.net 317 Nicolai Leymann 318 DT 320 Email: N.Leymann@telekom.de 321 Ramakanth Josyula 322 Arris 324 Email: ramakanthjosyula@gmail.com 326 Timothy Winters 327 UNH 329 Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu