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

Versions: 00 01 02

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]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/