IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Survey
draft-volunteers-pim-igmp-mld-bis-00

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."

This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2019.

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. Procedures Followed
• 2.1. Methodology
• 2.2. Intended Recipients of Questionnaire
• 2.3. Processing of Responses
• 3. Questionnaire
• 3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors
• 3.1.1. Implementation Status
• 3.1.2. Implementation Specifics
• 3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives
• 3.2. Questionnaire for Network Operators
• 3.2.1. Deployment Status
• 3.2.2. Deployment Specifics
• 3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives
• 4. Acknowledgments
• 5. References
• 5.1. Normative References
• 5.2. Informative References
• Authors' Addresses

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 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.

2.2. Intended Recipients of Questionnaire

1. Network operators
2. Router vendors
3. Switch vendors
4. Host implementors

2.3. Processing of Responses

Responses received will remain confidential. Only the aggregated results will be published and so it will be impossible to identify the contributions by individual operators, vendors or implementors. Furthermore, an option to submit the completed questionnaire anonymously will be available.

3. Questionnaire

3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors

Name:

Affiliation/Organization:

Contact Email:

Do you wish to keep your name and affiliation confidential?: Y/N

3.1.1. Implementation Status

Which of the following have you implemented? And for how long has it been implemented?

1. IGMPv1 [RFC1112] implemented?: Y/N, since:
2. IGMPv2 [RFC2236] implemented?: Y/N, since:
3. IGMPv3 [RFC3376] implemented?: Y/N, since:
4. Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790] Implemented: Y/N, since:
5. MLDv1 [RFC2710] implemented?: Y/N, since:
6. MLDv2 [RFC3810] implemented?: Y/N, since:
7. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] implemented?: Y/N, since:

3.1.2. Implementation Specifics

1. Which IGMPv3 features have you implemented?
2. Which MLDv2 features have you implemented?
3. Have you carried out IGMPv3 or MLDv2 interoperability tests with other implementations? (What issues arose during these tests?) (How could the standards have help minimize these issues?)

3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives

1. What feature(s) has been deliberately omitted from IGMPv3 or MLDv2 implementations? (Because you think it is sub-optimal or potentially has significant disadvantages/issues?) (Because of insufficient demand/use cases?)
2. Which ambiguities or inconsistencies in RFC 3376 or RFC 3810 made the implementation challenging?
3. 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 keep your name and affiliation confidential?:

3.2.1. Deployment Status

Which of the following are currently deployed in your network? And for how long has it been deployed?

1. IGMPv1 [RFC1112] deployed?: Y/N, since:
2. IGMPv2 [RFC2236] deployed?: Y/N, since:
3. IGMPv3 [RFC3376] deployed?: Y/N, since:
4. Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790] Implemented: Y/N, since:
5. MLDv1 [RFC2710] deployed?: Y/N, since:
6. MLDv2 [RFC3810] deployed?: Y/N, since:
7. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] deployed?: Y/N, since:

3.2.2. Deployment Specifics

1. Which IGMPv3 features are in use? (Is Exclude mode with source list in use?)
2. Which MLDv2 features are in use? (Is Exclude mode with source list in use?)
3. Does your network rely on the fallback mechanism between different IGMP versions? (Between which IGMP versions?) (What is your experience with this fallback mechanism?)
4. Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) implementations for your deployment? (Have you encountered any inter-operability or backward-compatibility issues amongst differing implementations?) (What are your concerns about these issues?)

3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives

1. 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. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Stig and Mike for valuable review and feedback.

5. References

5.1. Normative References

5.2. Informative References

Authors' Addresses