[routing-wg] 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 tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk and william.atwood at 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 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?