Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Zheng
Request for Comments: 7063 Huawei Technologies
Category: Informational Z. Zhang
ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper Networks
R. Parekh
Cisco Systems
December 2013
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Zheng
Request for Comments: 7063 Huawei Technologies
Category: Informational Z. Zhang
ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper Networks
R. Parekh
Cisco Systems
December 2013
Survey Report on Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Implementations and Deployments
协议独立多播-稀疏模式（PIM-SM）实现和部署调查报告
Abstract
摘要
This document provides supporting documentation to advance the IETF stream's Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) protocol from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.
本文档提供支持文档，以将IETF流的协议独立多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）协议从建议的标准提升到Internet标准。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
本文件不是互联网标准跟踪规范；它是为了提供信息而发布的。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。并非IESG批准的所有文件都适用于任何级别的互联网标准；见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7063.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7063.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2013 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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 described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Motivation ......................................................3
1.1. Overview of PIM-SM .........................................3
1.2. Requirements of RFCs 2026 and 6410 .........................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 Rendezvous Points (RPs) and RP
Discovery Mechanisms ................................4
2.3. Vendor Responses ...........................................5
2.3.1. Implementations Based on RFCs 4601 and 2362 .........5
2.3.2. Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR Implementations ...........5
2.3.3. Implementations of Other Features of RFC 4601 .......5
2.4. Key Findings ...............................................6
3. Security Considerations .........................................6
4. Acknowledgements ................................................6
5. References ......................................................6
5.1. Normative References .......................................6
5.2. Informative References .....................................7
Appendix A. Questionnaire ..........................................8
A.1. PIM Survey for Operators ....................................8
A.2. PIM Survey for Implementors ................................10
1. Motivation ......................................................3
1.1. Overview of PIM-SM .........................................3
1.2. Requirements of RFCs 2026 and 6410 .........................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 Rendezvous Points (RPs) and RP
Discovery Mechanisms ................................4
2.3. Vendor Responses ...........................................5
2.3.1. Implementations Based on RFCs 4601 and 2362 .........5
2.3.2. Lack of (*,*,RP) and PMBR Implementations ...........5
2.3.3. Implementations of Other Features of RFC 4601 .......5
2.4. Key Findings ...............................................6
3. Security Considerations .........................................6
4. Acknowledgements ................................................6
5. References ......................................................6
5.1. Normative References .......................................6
5.2. Informative References .....................................7
Appendix A. Questionnaire ..........................................8
A.1. PIM Survey for Operators ....................................8
A.2. PIM Survey for Implementors ................................10
Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) was first published as [RFC2117] in 1997. This version was then obsoleted by [RFC2362] in 1998. The protocol was classified as Experimental in both 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. The conducted survey and this document are part of the work.
协议独立多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）于1997年首次作为[RFC2117]发布。该版本随后于1998年被[RFC2362]淘汰。在这两份文件中，该方案被归类为实验方案。协议规范随后被整体重写，并在2006年被提升为提议的标准[RFC4601]。考虑到已经开发了多个独立的实现，并获得了足够的成功运营经验，PIM工作组决定将PIM-SM协议提升到互联网标准。进行的调查和本文件是工作的一部分。
[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:
[RFC2026]定义了标准化过程中的各个阶段、在各个阶段之间移动文档的要求以及在此过程中使用的文档类型。[RFC2026]第4.1.2节规定：
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.
对至少两个独立且可互操作的实现的要求适用于规范的所有选项和特性。如果一个或多个选项或功能尚未在至少两个可互操作的实现中演示，则只有在删除这些选项或功能的情况下，规范才能升级到标准草案级别。
[RFC6410] updates the 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:
[RFC6410]更新了[RFC2026]中定义的IETF标准过程。首先，它将标准流程从三个标准跟踪成熟度级别减少到两个。第二个成熟度级别是草案标准和[RFC2026]中规定的标准的组合。[RFC6410]第2.2节规定：
(1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.
(1) 至少有两个独立的互操作实现，具有广泛的部署和成功的操作经验。
(2)...
(2)...
(3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly increase implementation complexity.
(3) 规范中没有未使用的特性会大大增加实现的复杂性。
Optional features that do not meet the aforesaid criteria have been identified by the PIM Working Group and will be removed. This document provides supporting documentation to advance the IETF stream's Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) protocol from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.
PIM工作组已确定不符合上述标准的可选功能，并将删除这些功能。本文档提供支持文档，以将IETF流的协议独立多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）协议从建议的标准提升到Internet标准。
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 22 Oct 2012. The responses remain confidential and only combined results are published here, while responders chose whether to keep their affiliations confidential. The raw questionnaire is shown in Appendix A, and a compilation of the responses is included in the following section.
PIM工作组共同主席发布了一份调查问卷，并向供应商和运营社区广泛发布，以获取有关PIM-SM实施和部署的信息。调查于2012年10月22日结束。回复仍然是保密的，只有合并的结果才会在这里公布，而回复者则选择是否对其所属机构保密。原始问卷如附录A所示，下一节包含了回复汇编。
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.
九家运营商对调查作出了回应。他们是SWITCH、加拿大国家研究委员会、南达科他矿业技术学院、摩托罗拉解决方案公司和五家匿名运营商。
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.
自1998年以来，PIM-SM已被广泛应用于校园、企业、研究和广域网、宽带ISP和数字电视。有五种部署基于[RFC4601]实现，两种部署基于[RFC2362]实现。IPv6的PIM-SM已由三家运营商部署。在九家运营商中，有六家已经部署了来自多家供应商的PIM-SM实现。
Operators reported minor interoperability issues and these were addressed by the vendors. There was no major interoperability concern reported by the operators.
运营商报告了较小的互操作性问题，这些问题由供应商解决。运营商未报告存在重大互操作性问题。
Except for one deployment of PIM-SM with Multicast Extensions to OSPF (MOSPF), all other operators have deployed PIM-SM exclusively. No operators acknowledged deployments of either (*,*,RP) or PIM Multicast Border Route (PMBR) for interconnection between PIM-SM and other multicast domains.
除了一个带有OSPF（MOSPF）多播扩展的PIM-SM部署外，所有其他运营商都专门部署了PIM-SM。没有运营商确认部署（*、*、RP）或PIM多播边界路由（PMBR）用于PIM-SM和其他多播域之间的互连。
The number of PIM-SM RPs deployed by operators ranges from a few (e.g., sixteen) to a massively scaled number (four hundred). Both static configuration and Bootstrap Router (BSR) have been deployed as RP discovery mechanisms.
运营商部署的PIM-SM RPs数量从几个（如十六个）到大规模扩展的数量（四百个）。静态配置和引导路由器（BSR）都已部署为RP发现机制。
Anycast-RP has been deployed for RP redundancy. Two operators have deployed Anycast-RP using the Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (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.
Anycast RP已部署用于RP冗余。两个运营商使用多播源发现协议（MSDP）[RFC3446]部署了Anycast RP。三家运营商已在不同场景下使用MSDP[RFC3446]和PIM[RFC4610]部署了Anycast RP。最好的常见做法似乎是使用静态RP配置和任意广播RP实现冗余。
Eight vendors reported PIM-SM implementations. They are XORP, Huawei Technologies, Cisco Systems, Motorola Solutions, Juniper Networks, and three other anonymous vendors.
八家供应商报告了PIM-SM实施情况。他们是XORP、华为技术、思科系统、摩托罗拉解决方案、Juniper Networks和其他三家匿名供应商。
Four vendors reported PIM-SM implementations based on [RFC4601] and two reported PIM-SM implementations based on [RFC2362]. Two other reported implementations are hybrids.
四家供应商报告了基于[RFC4601]的PIM-SM实现，两家供应商报告了基于[RFC2362]的PIM-SM实现。另外两个报告的实现是混合的。
Minor interoperability issues have been addressed by the vendors over the years and no concerns were reported by any vendor.
这些年来，供应商已经解决了一些小的互操作性问题，没有任何供应商报告过任何问题。
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 too complex and non-scalable.
由于缺乏部署要求或出于安全考虑，大多数供应商未实现[RFC4601]中规定的（*、*、RP）状态。类似地，大多数供应商也没有实施PMBR，原因是缺乏部署需求，或者因为它被认为过于复杂且不可扩展。
Only one vendor, XORP, reported (*,*,RP) and PMBR implementation and they were implemented just because these were part of the [RFC4601] specification.
只有一家供应商XORP报告了（*，*，RP）和PMBR的实施，之所以实施，是因为它们是[RFC4601]规范的一部分。
Most vendors have implemented all of the following from the [RFC4601] specification:
大多数供应商已根据[RFC4601]规范实现了以下所有功能：
o Source-Specific Multicast (SSM)
o 源特定多播（SSM）
o Join suppression
o 加入抑制
o Explicit tracking
o 显式跟踪
o Register mechanism
o 注册机制
o Shortest Path Tree (SPT) switchover at last-hop router
o 最后一跳路由器的最短路径树（SPT）切换
o Assert mechanism
o 断言机制
o Hashing of group to RP mappings
o 群到RP映射的散列
Some vendors do not implement explicit tracking and SSM.
一些供应商没有实现显式跟踪和SSM。
PIM-SM has been widely implemented and deployed for different applications. The protocol is sufficiently well specified in [RFC4601] resulting in interoperable implementation deployed by operators.
PIM-SM已被广泛应用于不同的应用程序。[RFC4601]中对协议进行了充分的规定，从而实现了由运营商部署的互操作性实现。
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].
[RFC4601]中规定的（*、*、RP）和PMBR没有部署，只有一个已知实现。因此，有必要按照[RFC2026]和[RFC6410]的要求从规范中删除这些特性。
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 Security Policy Databases (SPDs) where interface, the ALL_PIM_ROUTERS multicast address, etc., can be used as selectors, according to [RFC5796].
PIM WG知道至少有三种（并且相信还有更多）PIM-SM实现支持使用IPsec保护PIM消息。对于其中至少一个，IPsec不是PIM实现本身的一部分——根据[RFC5796]的说法，IPsec只是使用安全策略数据库（SPD）配置IPsec，其中接口、所有PIM路由器多播地址等可以用作选择器。
The authors would like to thank Tim Chown and Bill Atwood, who 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.
作者要感谢Tim Chown和Bill Atwood，他们作为中立的第三方帮助收集并匿名回复。特别感谢亚历山大·加尔、威廉·马顿·索托马约尔、史蒂夫·鲍尔、索努姆·马图尔、帕夫林·拉多斯拉夫、舒雪·范、萨米尔·古拉贾尼以及匿名回复者。
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2026]Bradner，S.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，1996年10月。
[RFC6410] Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9, RFC 6410, October 2011.
[RFC6410]Housley，R.，Crocker，D.，和E.Burger，“将标准轨道降低到两个成熟度水平”，BCP 9，RFC 6410，2011年10月。
[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.
[RFC2117]Estrin，D.，Farinaci，D.，Helmy，A.，Thaler，D.，Deering，S.，Handley，M.，Jacobson，V.，Liu，C.，Sharma，P.，和L.Wei，“协议独立多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）：协议规范”，RFC 21171997年6月。
[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.
[RFC2362]Estrin，D.，Farinaci，D.，Helmy，A.，Thaler，D.，Deering，S.，Handley，M.，和V.Jacobson，“协议独立多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）：协议规范”，RFC 2362，1998年6月。
[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.
[RFC3446]Kim，D.，Meyer，D.，Kilmer，H.，和D.Farinaci，“使用协议独立多播（PIM）和多播源发现协议（MSDP）的任意广播呈现点（RP）机制”，RFC 3446，2003年1月。
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
[RFC4601]Fenner，B.，Handley，M.，Holbrook，H.，和I.Kouvelas，“协议独立多播-稀疏模式（PIM-SM）：协议规范（修订版）”，RFC 46012006年8月。
[RFC4610] Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610, August 2006.
[RFC4610]Farinaci，D.和Y.Cai，“使用协议独立多播（PIM）的任意广播RP”，RFC 46102006年8月。
[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.
[RFC5796]Atwood，W.，Islam，S.，和M.Siami，“协议独立多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）链路本地消息中的身份验证和机密性”，RFC 57962010年3月。
This section provides copies of the questionnaires exactly as distributed to operators and implementors.
本节提供了分发给运营商和实施者的问卷副本。
Introduction:
导言：
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.)
PIM-SM于1997年首次作为RFC2117出版，1998年再次作为RFC2362出版。在这两份文件中，该方案被归类为实验方案。PIM-SM协议规范随后被整体重写，并于2006年升级为RFC4601标准。考虑到已开发的多个独立实现和获得的成功运行经验，IETF决定将PIM-SM路由协议提升至标准草案。本次调查旨在提供支持性文件，将独立于协议的多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）路由协议从IETF提出的标准提升到标准草案。（由于RFC6410，现在打算将其升级为互联网标准。不再使用标准草案。）
This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group.
本调查代表IETF PIM工作组发布。
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.
回复将由中立的第三方收集，并在回复中要求时严格保密；只有最终的综合结果才会公布。Tim Chown和Bill Atwood同意匿名回复这份问卷。他们在多播方面有着长期的经验，但在这方面没有直接的经济利益，也没有与任何相关供应商的联系。提姆在英国南安普敦大学工作，他多年来一直在IETF工作，其中包括工作组，他是6ReNUM工作组的联合主席。Bill就读于加拿大蒙特利尔康科迪亚大学，十多年来一直积极参与IETF pim工作组，尤其是在安全领域。
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.
请将问卷回复发送给他们两人。地址是tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk还有威廉。atwood@concordia.ca. 请在主题字段中包含字符串“RFC4601 bis问卷”。
Before answering the questions, please complete the following background information.
在回答问题之前，请填写以下背景信息。
Name of the Respondent:
答辩人姓名：
Affiliation/Organization:
附属机构/组织：
Contact Email:
联络电邮：
Provide description of PIM deployment:
提供PIM部署的说明：
Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential:
您是否希望对提供的信息保密：
Questions:
问题：
1 Have you deployed PIM-SM in your network?
1您是否在网络中部署了PIM-SM？
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?
2您在网络中部署PIM-SM有多长时间了？您知道您的部署是否基于最新的RFC4601吗？
3 Have you deployed PIM-SM for IPv6 in your network?
3您是否在网络中部署了IPv6的PIM-SM？
4 Are you using equipment with different (multi-vendor) PIM-SM implementations for your deployment?
4您是否使用具有不同（多供应商）PIM-SM实施的设备进行部署？
5 Have you encountered any inter-operability or backward-compatibility issues amongst differing implementations? If yes, what are your concerns about these issues?
5在不同的实现中，您是否遇到过任何互操作性或向后兼容性问题？如果是，您对这些问题有何顾虑？
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?
6您是否在网络中同时部署了密集模式和稀疏模式？如果是，您是否使用*、*、RP或PMBR等功能在这些模式之间布线？
7 To what extent have you deployed PIM functionality, like BSR, SSM, and Explicit Tracking?
7您在多大程度上部署了PIM功能，如BSR、SSM和显式跟踪？
8 Which RP mapping mechanism do you use: Static, AutoRP, or BSR?
8您使用哪种RP映射机制：静态、自动映射或BSR？
9 How many RPs have you deployed in your network?
9您在网络中部署了多少RPs？
10 If you use Anycast-RP, is it Anycast-RP using MSDP (RFC 3446) or Anycast-RP using PIM (RFC4610)?
10如果您使用Anycast RP，是使用MSDP（RFC 3446）的Anycast RP还是使用PIM（RFC4610）的Anycast RP？
11 Do you have any other comments on PIM-SM deployment in your network?
11您对网络中的PIM-SM部署有何其他意见？
Introduction:
导言：
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.)
PIM-SM于1997年首次作为RFC2117出版，1998年再次作为RFC2362出版。在这两份文件中，该方案被归类为实验方案。PIM-SM协议规范随后被整体重写，并于2006年升级为RFC4601标准。考虑到已开发的多个独立实现和获得的成功运行经验，IETF决定将PIM-SM路由协议提升至标准草案。本次调查旨在提供支持性文件，将独立于协议的多播稀疏模式（PIM-SM）路由协议从IETF提出的标准提升到标准草案。（由于RFC6410，现在打算将其升级为互联网标准。不再使用标准草案。）
This survey is issued on behalf of the IETF PIM Working Group.
本调查代表IETF PIM工作组发布。
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.
回复将由中立的第三方收集，并在回复中要求时严格保密；只有最终的综合结果才会公布。Tim Chown和Bill Atwood同意匿名回复这份问卷。他们在多播方面有着长期的经验，但在这方面没有直接的经济利益，也没有与任何相关供应商的联系。提姆在英国南安普敦大学工作，他多年来一直在IETF工作，其中包括工作组，他是6ReNUM工作组的联合主席。Bill就读于加拿大蒙特利尔康科迪亚大学，十多年来一直积极参与IETF pim工作组，尤其是在安全领域。
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.
请将问卷回复发送给他们两人。地址是tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk还有威廉。atwood@concordia.ca. 请在主题字段中包含字符串“RFC 4601 bis问卷”。
Before answering the questions, please complete the following background information.
在回答问题之前，请填写以下背景信息。
Name of the Respondent:
答辩人姓名：
Affiliation/Organization:
附属机构/组织：
Contact Email:
联络电邮：
Provide description of PIM implementation:
提供PIM实施说明：
Do you wish to keep the information provided confidential:
您是否希望对提供的信息保密：
Questions:
问题：
1 Have you implemented PIM-SM?
1您是否实施了PIM-SM？
2 Is the PIM-SM implementation based on RFC2362 or RFC4601?
2 PIM-SM实施是否基于RFC2362或RFC4601？
3 Have you implemented (*,*, RP) state of RFC4601? What is the
rationale behind implementing or omitting (*,*,RP)?
3 Have you implemented (*,*, RP) state of RFC4601? What is the
rationale behind implementing or omitting (*,*,RP)?
4 Have you implemented the PMBR as specified in RFC4601 and RFC2715? What is the rationale behind implementing or omitting PMBR?
4您是否按照RFC4601和RFC2715的规定实施了PMBR？实施或省略PMBR的理由是什么？
5 Have you implemented other features and functions of RFC4601:
5您是否实现了RFC4601的其他特性和功能：
- SSM
- SSM
- Join Suppression
- 加入抑制
- Explicit tracking
- 显式跟踪
- Register mechanism
- 注册机制
- SPT switchover at last-hop router
- 最后一跳路由器的SPT切换
- Assert mechanism
- 断言机制
- Hashing of group to RP mappings
- 群到RP映射的散列
6 Does your PIM-SM implementation support IPv6?
6您的PIM-SM实施是否支持IPv6？
7 Have you encountered any inter-operability issues with other PIM implementations in trials or in the field?
7您是否在试验或现场遇到其他PIM实施的互操作性问题？
8 Do you have any other comments or concerns about PIM-SM as specified in RFC4601?
8您是否对RFC4601中规定的PIM-SM有任何其他意见或担忧？
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Lianshu Zheng Huawei Technologies China
华为技术中国有限公司
EMail: vero.zheng@huawei.com
EMail: vero.zheng@huawei.com
Zhaohui Zhang Juniper Networks USA
张兆辉Juniper Networks美国
EMail: zzhang@juniper.net
EMail: zzhang@juniper.net
Rishabh Parekh Cisco Systems USA
Rishabh Parekh思科系统美国公司
EMail: riparekh@cisco.com
EMail: riparekh@cisco.com