Heads-up. The IETF PIM working group is re-running its survey (owing to a snafu).
Please contribute responses even if you did (or did not) contribute before. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stig > Venaas > Sent: 24 September 2012 21:20 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [pim] PIM survey for operators (round 2) > > The IETF pim working group is conducting a survey in order to advance > the PIM Sparse Mode spec on the IETF Standards Track, and would like > input from operators. The survey ends October 24th. > > Please note that we did this survey previously with a deadline in July. > But owing to unforeseen circumstances we need to restart this survey. > We are acutely aware that this is an additional burden on the people > who took the time to respond before. We hope that they will re-send > their responses - maybe they are still filed in their sent emails. > > Please see below for more information. > > thank you, > pim chairs Mike & Stig > ---- > > Introduction: > > PIM-SM was first published as RFC 2117 in 1997 and then again as > RFC 2362 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 > RFC 4601 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 RFC 6410, > 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; 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 [email protected] and [email protected]. > 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 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 (RFC 4610)? > > 11 Do you have any other comments on PIM-SM deployment in your > network? > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
