PIM Working Group T. Eckert
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational O. Komolafe
Expires: May 7, 2020 Arista Networks
H. Asaeda
NICT
T. Winters
UNH
N. Leymann
DT
M. Mishra
Cisco
A. Peter
IP Infusion
S. Babu
Juniper Networks
R. Josyula
Arris
November 4, 2019
IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Update Survey
draft-eckert-pim-igmp-mld-questionnaire-02
Abstract
The PIM WG intends to progress IGMPv3 and MLDv2 from Proposed
Standards to Internet Standards. This document describes the
motivation, procedures and questions proposed for a survey of
operators, vendors and implementors of IGMPv3 and MLDv2. The
objective of the survey is to collate information to help the PIM WG
progress these protocols to Internet Standards.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Eckert, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Update Survey November 2019
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Procedures Followed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Intended Recipients of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Processing of Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Implementation Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Questionnaire for Network Operators . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Deployment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Deployment Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) [RFC3376] and
Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6 [RFC3810] are
currently Proposed Standards. Given the fact that multiple
independent implementations of these protocols exist and they have
been successfully and widely used operationally, the PIM WG is keen
to progress these protocols to Internet Standards. In order to
facilitate this effort, it is critical to establish if there are
features specified in [RFC3376] and [RFC3810] that have not been
Eckert, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Update Survey November 2019
widely used and also to determine any interoperability issues that
have arisen from using the protocols.
Following approach taken for PIM-SM, documented in [RFC7063], the PIM
WG has decided that conducting a comprehensive survey on
implementations and deployment of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 will provide
valuable information to facilitate their progression to Internet
Standard.
This document describes the procedures proposed for conducting the
survey and introduces the proposed questions.
2. Procedures Followed
2.1. Methodology
The PIM WG Chairs will officially kick off the survey and distribute
the questionnaire and pertinent information through appropriate
forums, aiming to ensure the survey reaches as wide an audience as
possible.
An online survey tool will be used in order make the submission and
processing of returns as convenient as possible. Therefore, the
questions proposed in this document will be transcribed to the online
tool and the URL distributed to potential survey participants.
2.2. Intended Recipients of Questionnaire
1. Network operators
2. Router vendors
3. Switch vendors
4. Host implementors
2.3. Processing of Responses
The submitted responses will be collected by a neutral third-party
and kept strictly confidential. The published results will be
anonymized and so the contributions by individual operators, vendors
or implementors will not be identified. Therefore, survey responders
will be identified but they would not be associated with a specific
response. Furthermore, there is an option to complete the
questionnaire anonymously, in which case the responder will not be
identified in the report.
Eckert, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Update Survey November 2019
Tim Chown has kindly agreed to anonymize the responses to this
questionnaire. Tim has considerable multicast expertise but has no
direct financial interest in this matter nor ties to any of the
vendors involved. Tim works at Jisc, who run the UK's national
research and education network, Janet, and has been active in the
IETF for many years.
3. Questionnaire
3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors
Name:
Affiliation/Organization:
Contact Email:
Do you wish to complete the survey anonymously?: Y/N
3.1.1. Implementation Status
Which of the following have you implemented?
1. IGMPv1 [RFC1112]?
2. IGMPv2 [RFC2236]?
3. IGMPv3 [RFC3376]?
4. Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790]?
5. MLDv1 [RFC2710]?
6. MLDv2 [RFC3810]?
7. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790]?
3.1.2. Implementation Specifics
1. Which IGMPv3 and MLDv2 features have you implemented?
A. Source filtering with include list?
B. Source filtering with exclude list?
C. Snooping proxy?
D. Snooping querier?
Eckert, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Update Survey November 2019
E. Snooping filtering?
F. L2 Report flooding?
G. Host proxy?
H. Unicast queries/reports?
2. Have you carried out IGMPv3 or MLDv2 interoperability tests with
other implementations?
A. What issues, if any, arose during these tests?
B. How could [RFC3376] and [RFC3810] have helped minimize these
issues?
3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives
1. Which ambiguities or inconsistencies in RFC 3376 or RFC 3810 made
the implementation challenging?
2. What suggestions would you make to the PIM WG as it seeks to
progress IGMPv3 and MLDv2 to Internet Standard?
3.2. Questionnaire for Network Operators
Name:
Affiliation/Organization:
Contact Email:
Do you wish to complete the survey anonymously?: Y/N:
3.2.1. Deployment Status
Which of the following have you deployed in your network?
1. IGMPv1 [RFC1112]?
2. IGMPv2 [RFC2236]?
3. IGMPv3 [RFC3376]?
4. Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790]?
5. MLDv1 [RFC2710]?
Eckert, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Update Survey November 2019
6. MLDv2 [RFC3810]?
7. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790]?
3.2.2. Deployment Specifics
1. Which IGMPv3 and MLDv2 features do you use?
A. Source filtering with include list?
B. Source filtering with exclude list?
C. Snooping proxy?
D. Snooping querier?
E. Snooping filtering?
F. L2 Report flooding?
G. Host proxy?
H. Unicast queries/reports?
2. Are you using equipment with multi-vendor implementations in your
IGMPv3/MLDv2 deployment?
A. What inter-operability issues, if any, have you experienced?
B. How could [RFC3376] and [RFC3810] have helped minimize these
issues?
3. Are you using different IGMP versions or different MLD versions
in your network?
A. Are you dependent on the fallback mechanism between the
different versions?
B. Have you experienced any issues related to the fallback
mechanism between the different versions?
C. How could [RFC3376] and [RFC3810] have helped minimize these
issues?
Eckert, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Update Survey November 2019
3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives
1. Based on your operational experience, What have you found to be
the strengths of IGMPv3 or MLDv2?
2. What have you found to be the weaknesses of IGMPv3 or MLDv2?
3. What suggestions would you make to the PIM WG as it seeks to
progress IGMPv3 and MLDv2 to Internet Standard?
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting",
RFC 1112, August 1989.
[RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
2", RFC 2236, November 1997.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
[RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October
1999.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790,
February 2010.
4.2. Informative References
[RFC7063] Zheng, L., Zhang, Z., and R. Parekh, "Survey Report on
Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM)
Implementations and Deployments", RFC 7063, December 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Toerless Eckert
Huawei Technologies
Email: tte@cs.fau.de
Eckert, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Update Survey November 2019
Olufemi Komolafe
Arista Networks
Email: femi@arista.com
Hitoshi Asaeda
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp
Timothy Winters
UNH
Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu
Nicolai Leymann
DT
Email: n.leymann@telekom.de
Mankamana Mishra
Cisco Systems
Email: mankamis@cisco.com
Anish Peter
IP Infusion
Email: anish.ietf@gmail.com
Suneesh Babu
Juniper Networks
Email: suneesh@juniper.net
Ramakanth Josyula
Arris
Email: ramakanthjosyula@gmail.com
Eckert, et al. Expires May 7, 2020 [Page 8]