Internet DRAFT - draft-volunteers-pim-igmp-mld-bis
draft-volunteers-pim-igmp-mld-bis
PIM Working Group M. Mishra
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Informational T. Eckert
Expires: September 9, 2019 Huawei
H. Asaeda
NICT
A. Peter
O. Komolafe
Arista Networks
S. Babu
Juniper
N. Leymann
DT
R. Josyula
Arris
T. Winters
UNH
March 8, 2019
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."
Mishra, et al. Expires September 9, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Survey March 2019
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
2. Procedures Followed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Intended Recipients of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Processing of Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Implementation Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Questionnaire for Network Operators . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Deployment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Deployment Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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
Mishra, et al. Expires September 9, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Survey March 2019
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:
Mishra, et al. Expires September 9, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Survey March 2019
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?
Mishra, et al. Expires September 9, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Survey March 2019
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?)
Mishra, et al. Expires September 9, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Survey March 2019
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
[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.
5.2. 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.
Mishra, et al. Expires September 9, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Survey March 2019
Authors' Addresses
Mankamana Mishra
Cisco Systems
821 Alder Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
USA
Email: mankamis@cisco.com
Toerless Eckert
Huawei Technologies
Email: tte@cs.fau.de
Hitoshi Asaeda
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp
Anish Peter
Email: anish.ietf@gmail.com
Olufemi Komolafe
Arista Networks
Email: femi@arista.com
Suneesh Babu
Juniper
Email: suneesh@juniper.net
Nicolai Leymann
DT
Email: N.Leymann@telekom.de
Mishra, et al. Expires September 9, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Survey March 2019
Ramakanth Josyula
Arris
Email: ramakanthjosyula@gmail.com
Timothy Winters
UNH
Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu
Mishra, et al. Expires September 9, 2019 [Page 8]