[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

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]


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