idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits61369/draft-eckert-pim-igmp-mld-questionnaire-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 (November 4, 2019) is 922 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 T. Eckert 3 Internet-Draft Huawei 4 Intended status: Informational O. Komolafe 5 Expires: May 7, 2020 Arista Networks 6 H. Asaeda 7 NICT 8 T. Winters 9 UNH 10 N. Leymann 11 DT 12 M. Mishra 13 Cisco 14 A. Peter 15 IP Infusion 16 S. Babu 17 Juniper Networks 18 R. Josyula 19 Arris 20 November 4, 2019 22 IGMPv3 and MLDv2 Update Survey 23 draft-eckert-pim-igmp-mld-questionnaire-02 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 May 7, 2020. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors . . . . . 4 74 3.1.1. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 75 3.1.2. Implementation Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 76 3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 3.2. Questionnaire for Network Operators . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 3.2.1. Deployment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 79 3.2.2. Deployment Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 81 4. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 82 4.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 83 4.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 84 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 86 1. Introduction 88 Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) [RFC3376] and 89 Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6 [RFC3810] are 90 currently Proposed Standards. Given the fact that multiple 91 independent implementations of these protocols exist and they have 92 been successfully and widely used operationally, the PIM WG is keen 93 to progress these protocols to Internet Standards. In order to 94 facilitate this effort, it is critical to establish if there are 95 features specified in [RFC3376] and [RFC3810] that have not been 96 widely used and also to determine any interoperability issues that 97 have arisen from using the protocols. 99 Following approach taken for PIM-SM, documented in [RFC7063], the PIM 100 WG has decided that conducting a comprehensive survey on 101 implementations and deployment of IGMPv3 and MLDv2 will provide 102 valuable information to facilitate their progression to Internet 103 Standard. 105 This document describes the procedures proposed for conducting the 106 survey and introduces the proposed questions. 108 2. Procedures Followed 110 2.1. Methodology 112 The PIM WG Chairs will officially kick off the survey and distribute 113 the questionnaire and pertinent information through appropriate 114 forums, aiming to ensure the survey reaches as wide an audience as 115 possible. 117 An online survey tool will be used in order make the submission and 118 processing of returns as convenient as possible. Therefore, the 119 questions proposed in this document will be transcribed to the online 120 tool and the URL distributed to potential survey participants. 122 2.2. Intended Recipients of Questionnaire 124 1. Network operators 126 2. Router vendors 128 3. Switch vendors 130 4. Host implementors 132 2.3. Processing of Responses 134 The submitted responses will be collected by a neutral third-party 135 and kept strictly confidential. The published results will be 136 anonymized and so the contributions by individual operators, vendors 137 or implementors will not be identified. Therefore, survey responders 138 will be identified but they would not be associated with a specific 139 response. Furthermore, there is an option to complete the 140 questionnaire anonymously, in which case the responder will not be 141 identified in the report. 143 Tim Chown has kindly agreed to anonymize the responses to this 144 questionnaire. Tim has considerable multicast expertise but has no 145 direct financial interest in this matter nor ties to any of the 146 vendors involved. Tim works at Jisc, who run the UK's national 147 research and education network, Janet, and has been active in the 148 IETF for many years. 150 3. Questionnaire 152 3.1. Questionnaire for Vendors or Host Implementors 154 Name: 156 Affiliation/Organization: 158 Contact Email: 160 Do you wish to complete the survey anonymously?: Y/N 162 3.1.1. Implementation Status 164 Which of the following have you implemented? 166 1. IGMPv1 [RFC1112]? 168 2. IGMPv2 [RFC2236]? 170 3. IGMPv3 [RFC3376]? 172 4. Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790]? 174 5. MLDv1 [RFC2710]? 176 6. MLDv2 [RFC3810]? 178 7. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790]? 180 3.1.2. Implementation Specifics 182 1. Which IGMPv3 and MLDv2 features have you implemented? 184 A. Source filtering with include list? 186 B. Source filtering with exclude list? 188 C. Snooping proxy? 190 D. Snooping querier? 191 E. Snooping filtering? 193 F. L2 Report flooding? 195 G. Host proxy? 197 H. Unicast queries/reports? 199 2. Have you carried out IGMPv3 or MLDv2 interoperability tests with 200 other implementations? 202 A. What issues, if any, arose during these tests? 204 B. How could [RFC3376] and [RFC3810] have helped minimize these 205 issues? 207 3.1.3. Implementation Perspectives 209 1. Which ambiguities or inconsistencies in RFC 3376 or RFC 3810 made 210 the implementation challenging? 212 2. What suggestions would you make to the PIM WG as it seeks to 213 progress IGMPv3 and MLDv2 to Internet Standard? 215 3.2. Questionnaire for Network Operators 217 Name: 219 Affiliation/Organization: 221 Contact Email: 223 Do you wish to complete the survey anonymously?: Y/N: 225 3.2.1. Deployment Status 227 Which of the following have you deployed in your network? 229 1. IGMPv1 [RFC1112]? 231 2. IGMPv2 [RFC2236]? 233 3. IGMPv3 [RFC3376]? 235 4. Lightweight IGMPv3 [RFC5790]? 237 5. MLDv1 [RFC2710]? 238 6. MLDv2 [RFC3810]? 240 7. Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790]? 242 3.2.2. Deployment Specifics 244 1. Which IGMPv3 and MLDv2 features do you use? 246 A. Source filtering with include list? 248 B. Source filtering with exclude list? 250 C. Snooping proxy? 252 D. Snooping querier? 254 E. Snooping filtering? 256 F. L2 Report flooding? 258 G. Host proxy? 260 H. Unicast queries/reports? 262 2. Are you using equipment with multi-vendor implementations in your 263 IGMPv3/MLDv2 deployment? 265 A. What inter-operability issues, if any, have you experienced? 267 B. How could [RFC3376] and [RFC3810] have helped minimize these 268 issues? 270 3. Are you using different IGMP versions or different MLD versions 271 in your network? 273 A. Are you dependent on the fallback mechanism between the 274 different versions? 276 B. Have you experienced any issues related to the fallback 277 mechanism between the different versions? 279 C. How could [RFC3376] and [RFC3810] have helped minimize these 280 issues? 282 3.2.3. Deployment Perspectives 284 1. Based on your operational experience, What have you found to be 285 the strengths of IGMPv3 or MLDv2? 287 2. What have you found to be the weaknesses of IGMPv3 or MLDv2? 289 3. What suggestions would you make to the PIM WG as it seeks to 290 progress IGMPv3 and MLDv2 to Internet Standard? 292 4. References 294 4.1. Normative References 296 [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", 297 RFC 1112, August 1989. 299 [RFC2236] Fenner, W., "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 300 2", RFC 2236, November 1997. 302 [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A. 303 Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 304 3", RFC 3376, October 2002. 306 [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast 307 Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 308 1999. 310 [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery 311 Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. 313 [RFC5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet 314 Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast 315 Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790, 316 February 2010. 318 4.2. Informative References 320 [RFC7063] Zheng, L., Zhang, Z., and R. Parekh, "Survey Report on 321 Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) 322 Implementations and Deployments", RFC 7063, December 2013. 324 Authors' Addresses 326 Toerless Eckert 327 Huawei Technologies 329 Email: tte@cs.fau.de 330 Olufemi Komolafe 331 Arista Networks 333 Email: femi@arista.com 335 Hitoshi Asaeda 336 National Institute of Information and Communications Technology 338 Email: asaeda@nict.go.jp 340 Timothy Winters 341 UNH 343 Email: twinters@iol.unh.edu 345 Nicolai Leymann 346 DT 348 Email: n.leymann@telekom.de 350 Mankamana Mishra 351 Cisco Systems 353 Email: mankamis@cisco.com 355 Anish Peter 356 IP Infusion 358 Email: anish.ietf@gmail.com 360 Suneesh Babu 361 Juniper Networks 363 Email: suneesh@juniper.net 365 Ramakanth Josyula 366 Arris 368 Email: ramakanthjosyula@gmail.com