[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report) 00 01 02 03 RFC 7063

Network Working Group                                           L. Zheng
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational                                  Z. Zhang
Expires: March 22, 2014                                 Juniper Networks
                                                               R. Parekh
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                      September 18, 2013


        Survey Report on PIM-SM Implementations and Deployments
           draft-ietf-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-03.txt

Abstract

   This document provides supporting documentation to advance the
   Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) protocol from
   IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.

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 http://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 March 22, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   (http://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



Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Overview of PIM-SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.2.  [RFC2026] and [RFC6410] Requirements . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  Survey on Implementations and Deployments  . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Operator Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.2.1.  Description of PIM-SM deployments  . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.2.2.  PIM-SM deployment with other multicast technologies  .  4
       2.2.3.  PIM-SM RPs and RP Discovery mechanisms . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Vendor Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.3.1.  [RFC4601] and [RFC2362] implementations  . . . . . . .  5
       2.3.2.  Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementations  . . . . . .  5
       2.3.3.  Implementations of other features of RFC4601 . . . . .  5
     2.4.  Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

   3.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   5.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

   6.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   Appendix A.  Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     A.1.  PIM Survey for Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     A.2.  PIM Survey for Implementors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15















Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


1.  Motivation

1.1.  Overview of PIM-SM

   Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) was first
   published as [RFC2117] in 1997 and then again as [RFC2362] in 1998.
   The protocol was classified as Experimental in both of these
   documents.  The protocol specification was then rewritten in whole
   and advanced to Proposed Standard as [RFC4601] in 2006.  Considering
   its multiple independent implementations developed and sufficient
   successful operational experience gained, the PIM WG decided to
   advance the PIM-SM protocol to Internet Standard and the survey and
   this document are part of the work.

1.2.  [RFC2026] and [RFC6410] Requirements

   [RFC2026] defines the stages in the standardization process, the
   requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of
   documents used during this process.  Section 4.1.2 of [RFC2026]
   states that: "The requirement for at least two independent and
   interoperable implementations applies to all of the options and
   features of the specification.  In cases in which one or more options
   or features have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
   implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
   level only if those options or features are removed."

   [RFC6410] updates the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
   Standards Process defined in [RFC2026].  Primarily, it reduces the
   Standards Process from three Standards Track maturity levels to two.
   The second maturity level is a combination of Draft Standard and
   Standard as specified in [RFC2026].  Section 2.2 of [RFC6410] states
   that: "(1) There are at least two independent interoperating
   implementations with widespread deployment and successful operational
   experience. (3) There are no unused features in the specification
   that greatly increase implementation complexity."

   Optional features that do not meet the aforesaid criteria have been
   identified by the PIM Working Group and will be removed.  This
   document intends to provide supporting documentation to advance the
   PIM-SM protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.











Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


2.  Survey on Implementations and Deployments

2.1.  Methodology

   A questionnaire was issued by the PIM WG co-chairs and announced
   widely to the vendors and operational community to obtain information
   on PIM-SM implementations and deployments.  The Survey concluded on
   22nd Oct 2012.  The responses are kept confidential and only combined
   results are published here, while responders chose whether their
   affiliations are confidential.  The raw questionnaire is shown in
   Appendix A, and a compilation of the responses is included in the
   following section.

2.2.  Operator Responses

   Nine operators responded to the survey.  They are SWITCH, National
   Research Council Canada, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology,
   Motorola Solutions and five anonymous operators.

2.2.1.  Description of PIM-SM deployments

   Since 1998, PIM-SM has been deployed for a wide variety of
   applications: Campus, Enterprise, Research and WAN networks,
   Broadband ISP and Digital TV.  There are five deployments based on
   [RFC4601] implementations and two on [RFC2362] implementations.
   PIM-SM for IPv6 has been deployed by three operators.  Out of the
   nine operators, six have deployed PIM-SM implementations from
   multiple vendors.

   Operators reported minor inter-operability issues and these were
   addressed by the vendors.  There was no major inter-operability
   concern reported by the operators.

2.2.2.  PIM-SM deployment with other multicast technologies

   Except for one deployment of PIM-SM with Multicast OSPF (MOSPF), all
   other operators have deployed PIM-SM exclusively.  No operators
   acknowledged deployments of either (*,*,RP) or PIM Multicast Border
   Route (PMBR) for inter-connection between PIM-SM and other multicast
   domains.

2.2.3.   PIM-SM RPs and RP Discovery mechanisms

   The number of PIM-SM RPs deployed by operators range from a few (up
   to sixteen) to a massively scaled number (four hundred).  Both static
   configuration and Bootstrap Router (BSR) have been deployed as RP
   discovery mechanisms.




Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


   Anycast-RP has been deployed for RP redundancy.  Two operators have
   deployed Anycast-RP using MSDP [RFC3446].  Three operators have
   deployed Anycast-RP using both MSDP [RFC3446] and PIM [RFC4610] for
   different scenarios.  The best common practice seems to be to use
   static-RP configuration with Anycast-RP for redundancy.

2.3.  Vendor Responses

   Eight vendors reported PIM-SM implementations.  They are XORP, Huawei
   Technologies, Cisco Systems, Motorola Solutions, Juniper Networks and
   three other anonymous vendors.

2.3.1.  [RFC4601] and [RFC2362] implementations

   Four vendors reported PIM-SM implementations based on [RFC4601] and
   two reported PIM-SM implementations based on [RFC2362].  Two other
   reported implementations are hybrid.

   Minor inter-operability issues have been addressed by the vendors
   over the years and no concern was reported by any vendor.

2.3.2.  Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementations

   Most vendors have not implemented (*,*,RP) state as specified in
   [RFC4601] either due to lack of deployment requirements or due to
   security concerns.  Similarly, most vendors have also not implemented
   PMBR due to lack of deployment requirements or because it was
   considered to be too complex and non-scalable.

   Only one vendor, XORP, reported (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementation and
   they were implemented just because these were part of the [RFC4601]
   specification.

2.3.3.  Implementations of other features of RFC4601

   Most vendors have implemented all of the following from [RFC4601]
   specifications:

   o  SSM

   o  Join suppression

   o  Explicit tracking

   o  Register mechanism

   o  SPT switchover at last-hop router




Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


   o  Assert mechanism

   o  Hashing of group to RP mappings

   Some vendors do not implement explicit tracking and SSM.

2.4.  Key Findings

   PIM-SM has been widely implemented and deployed for different
   applications.  The protocol is sufficiently well specified in
   [RFC4601] resulting in inter-operable implementation deployed by
   operators.

   There are no deployments and only one known implementation of
   (*,*,RP) and PMBR as specified in [RFC4601].  Hence, it is necessary
   to remove these features from the specification as required by
   [RFC2026] and [RFC6410].


































Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


3.  Security Considerations

   The PIM WG is aware of at least three (and believes there are more)
   PIM-SM implementations that support the use of IPsec to protect PIM
   messages.  For at least one of them, IPsec is not part of the PIM
   implementation itself - one just configures IPsec with SPDs where
   interface, the ALL_PIM_ROUTERS multicast address, etc., can be used
   as selectors, according to [RFC5796].











































Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


4.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of the IANA.
















































Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


5.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thanks Tim Chown and Bill Atwood who had
   helped to collect and anonymize the responses as the neutral third-
   party.  Special thanks are also given to Alexander Gall, William F
   Maton Sotomayor, Steve Bauer, Sonum Mathur, Pavlin Radoslavov, Shuxue
   Fan, Sameer Gulrajani and to the anonymous responders.












































Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC6410]  Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the
              Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410,
              October 2011.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2117]  Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
              S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P., and L.
              Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification", RFC 2117, June 1997.

   [RFC2362]  Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering,
              S., Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "Protocol Independent
              Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification",
              RFC 2362, June 1998.

   [RFC3446]  Kim, D., Meyer, D., Kilmer, H., and D. Farinacci, "Anycast
              Rendevous Point (RP) mechanism using Protocol Independent
              Multicast (PIM) and Multicast Source Discovery Protocol
              (MSDP)", RFC 3446, January 2003.

   [RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
              "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
              Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.

   [RFC4610]  Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol
              Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610, August 2006.

   [RFC5796]  Atwood, W., Islam, S., and M. Siami, "Authentication and
              Confidentiality in Protocol Independent Multicast Sparse
              Mode (PIM-SM) Link-Local Messages", RFC 5796, March 2010.













Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


Appendix A.  Questionnaire

A.1.  PIM Survey for Operators


 Introduction:

 PIM-SM was first published as RFC2117 in 1997 and then again as
 RFC2362 in 1998.  The protocol was classified as Experimental in both
 of these documents.  The PIM-SM protocol specification was then
 rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as RFC4601 in
 2006.  Considering the multiple independent implementations developed
 and the successful operational experience gained, the IETF has
 decided to advance the PIM-SM routing protocol to Draft Standard.
 This survey intends to provide supporting documentation to advance
 the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing
 protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Draft Standard.  (Due to
 RFC6410, now the intention is to progress it to Internet Standard.
 Draft Standard is no longer used.)

 This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group.

 The responses will be collected by a neutral third-party and kept
 strictly confidential if requested in the response; only the final
 combined results will be published.  Tim Chown and Bill Atwood have
 agreed to anonymize the response to this Questionnaire.  They have a
 long experience with multicast but have no direct financial interest
 in this matter, nor ties to any of the vendors involved.  Tim is
 working at University of Southampton, UK, and he has been active in
 the IETF for many years, including the mboned working group, and he
 is a co-chair of the 6renum working group.  Bill is at Concordia
 University, Montreal, Canada, and he has been an active participant
 in the IETF pim working group for over ten years, especially in the
 area of security.

 Please send questionnaire responses addressed to them both.  The
 addresses are tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk and william.atwood@concordia.ca.
 Please include the string "RFC4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject
 field.

 Before answering the questions, please complete the following
 background information.

 Name of the Respondent:

 Affiliation/Organization:

 Contact Email:



Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


 Provide description of PIM deployment:

 Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential:

 Questions:

 1 Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network?

 2 How long have you had PIM-SM deployed in your network?  Do you know
   if your deployment is based on the most recent RFC4601?

 3 Have you deployed PIM-SM for IPv6 in your network?

 4 Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) PIM-SM
   implementations for your deployment?

 5 Have you encountered any inter-operability or backward-
   compatibility issues amongst differing implementations?  If yes, what
   are your concerns about these issues?

 6 Have you deployed both dense mode and sparse mode in your network?
   If yes, do you route between these modes using features such as
   *,*,RP or PMBR?

 7 To what extent have you deployed PIM functionality, like BSR, SSM,
   and Explicit Tracking?

 8 Which RP mapping mechanism do you use: Static, AutoRP, or BSR?

 9 How many RPs have you deployed in your network?

 10 If you use Anycast-RP, is it Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446) or
    Anycast-RP using PIM (RFC4610)?

 11 Do you have any other comments on PIM-SM deployment in your
    network?

A.2.  PIM Survey for Implementors


   Introduction:

   PIM-SM was first published as RFC2117 in 1997 and then again as
   RFC2362 in 1998.  The protocol was classified as Experimental in both
   of these documents.  The PIM-SM protocol specification was then
   rewritten in whole and advanced to Proposed Standard as RFC4601 in
   2006.  Considering the multiple independent implementations developed
   and the successful operational experience gained, the IETF has



Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


   decided to advance the PIM-SM routing protocol to Draft Standard.
   This survey intends to provide supporting documentation to advance
   the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing
   protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Draft Standard.  (Due to
   RFC6410, now the intention is to progress it to Internet Standard.
   Draft Standard is no longer used.)

   This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group.

   The responses will be collected by a neutral third-party and kept
   strictly confidential if requested in the response; only the final
   combined results will be published.  Tim Chown and Bill Atwood have
   agreed to anonymize the response to this Questionnaire.  They have a
   long experience with multicast but have no direct financial interest
   in this matter, nor ties to any of the vendors involved.  Tim is
   working at University of Southampton, UK, and he has been active in
   the IETF for many years, including the mboned working group, and he
   is a co-chair of the 6renum working group.  Bill is at Concordia
   University, Montreal, Canada, and he has been an active participant
   in the IETF pim working group for over ten years, especially in the
   area of security.

   Please send questionnaire responses addressed to them both.  The
   addresses are tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk and william.atwood@concordia.ca.
   Please include the string "RFC 4601 bis Questionnaire" in the subject
   field.

   Before answering the questions, please complete the following
   background information.

   Name of the Respondent:

   Affiliation/Organization:

   Contact Email:

   Provide description of PIM implementation:

   Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential:

   Questions:

   1 Have you implemented PIM-SM?

   2 Is the PIM-SM implementation based on RFC2362 or RFC4601?

   3 Have you implemented (*,*, RP) state of RFC4601?  What is the
     rationale behind implementing or omitting (*,*,RP)?



Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


   4 Have you implemented the PMBR as specified in RFC4601 and RFC2715?
     What is the rationale behind implementing or omitting PMBR?

   5 Have you implemented other features and functions of RFC4601:

   - SSM

   - Join Suppression

   - Explicit tracking

   - Register mechanism

   - SPT switchover at last-hop router

   - Assert mechanism

   - Hashing of group to RP mappings

   6 Does your PIM-SM implementation support IPv6?

   7 Have you encountered any inter-operability issues with other PIM
     implementations in trials or in the field?

   8 Do you have any other comments or concerns about PIM-SM as
     specified in RFC4601?

























Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           Survey Report on PIM-SM          September 2013


Authors' Addresses

   Lianshu Zheng
   Huawei Technologies
   China

   Email: vero.zheng@huawei.com


   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks
   USA

   Email: zzhang@juniper.net


   Rishabh Parekh
   Cisco Systems
   USA

   Email: riparekh@cisco.com






























Zheng, et al.            Expires March 22, 2014                [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/