draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-07.txt		rfc7346.txt
	Internet Engineering Task Force R. Droms		Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Droms
	Internet-Draft Cisco		Request for Comments: 7346 Cisco
	Updates: 4007, 4291 (if approved) June 12, 2014		Updates: 4007, 4291 August 2014
	Intended status: Standards Track		Category: Standards Track
	Expires: December 14, 2014		ISSN: 2070-1721
	IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes		IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes
	draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-07.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes. This		This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes and
	document updates RFC 4007 and RFC 4291		therefore updates RFCs 4007 and 4291.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This is an Internet Standards Track document.
	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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		received public review and has been approved for publication by the
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
			Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on December 14, 2014.		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/rfc7346.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 19		skipping to change at page 2, line 34
	modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.		modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
	Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling		Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
	the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified		the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
	outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may		outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
	not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format		not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
	it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other		it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
	than English.		than English.
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	RFC 4291 [RFC4291] defines "scop is a 4-bit multicast scope value		RFC 4291 [RFC4291] defines "scop" as "a 4-bit multicast scope value
	used to limit the scope of the multicast group." scop 3 is defined as		used to limit the scope of the multicast group" and defines "scop 3"
	"reserved" in RFC 4291. The multicast protocol specification in		as "reserved". The multicast protocol specification in [MPL] desires
	draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] desires		to use multicast scop 3 to transport multicast traffic scoped to a
	to use multicast scop 3 for transport of multicast traffic scoped to		network of nodes connected in a mesh. This scop value is used to
	a network of nodes connected in a mesh. The use of this scop value		accommodate a multicast scope that is greater than Link-Local but is
	is to accommodate a multicast scope that is greater than Link-Local		also automatically determined by the network architecture.
	but is also automatically determined by the network architecture.
	2. Definition of IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes (Updates RFC 4291)		2. Definition of IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes (Updates RFC 4291)
	The following table updates the definitions in RFC 4291:		The following table updates the definitions in [RFC4291]:
	+------+--------------------------+-------------------------+		+------+--------------------------+-------------------------+
	| scop | NAME | REFERENCE |		| scop | NAME | REFERENCE |
	+------+--------------------------+-------------------------+		+------+--------------------------+-------------------------+
	| 0 | Reserved | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |		| 0 | Reserved | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
	| 1 | Interface-Local | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |		| 1 | Interface-Local scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
	| 2 | Link-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |		| 2 | Link-Local scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
	| 3 | Realm-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |		| 3 | Realm-Local scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
	| 4 | Admin-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |		| 4 | Admin-Local scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
	| 5 | Site-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |		| 5 | Site-Local scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
	| 6 | Unassigned | |		| 6 | Unassigned | |
	| 7 | Unassigned | |		| 7 | Unassigned | |
	| 8 | Organization-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |		| 8 | Organization-Local scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
	| 9 | Unassigned | |		| 9 | Unassigned | |
	| A | Unassigned | |		| A | Unassigned | |
	| B | Unassigned | |		| B | Unassigned | |
	| C | Unassigned | |		| C | Unassigned | |
	| D | Unassigned | |		| D | Unassigned | |
	| E | Global scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |		| E | Global scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
	| F | Reserved | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |		| F | Reserved | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
	+------+--------------------------+-------------------------+		+------+--------------------------+-------------------------+
	The following change is applied to section 2.7 of RFC 4291:		The following change is applied to Section 2.7 of [RFC4291].
	OLD:		OLD:
	Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be		Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be
	administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived		administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived from
	from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related		physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
	configuration.		configuration.
	NEW:		NEW:
	Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope		Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope boundaries are
	boundaries are automatically derived from physical		automatically derived from physical connectivity or other non-
	connectivity or other, non-multicast related configuration.		multicast-related configurations. Global scope has no boundary.
	Global scope has no boundary. The boundaries of all other		The boundaries of all other non-reserved scopes of Admin-Local or
	non-reserved scopes of Admin-Local or larger are		larger are administratively configured. For reserved scopes, the
	administratively configured. For reserved scopes, the way		way of configuring their boundaries will be defined when the
	of configuring their boundaries will be defined when the		semantics of the scope are defined.
	semantics of the scope is defined.
	According to RFC 4007 [RFC4007], the zone of a Realm-Local		According to RFC 4007 [RFC4007], the zone of a Realm-Local scope
	scope must fall within zones of larger scope. Because the		must fall within zones of larger scope. Because the zone of a
	zone of a Realm-Local scope is configured automatically,		Realm-Local scope is configured automatically while the zones of
	while the zones of larger scopes are configured manually,		larger scopes are configured manually, care must be taken in the
	care must be taken in the definition of those larger scopes		definition of those larger scopes to ensure that the inclusion
	to ensure that inclusion constraint is met.		constraint is met.
	Realm-Local scopes created by different network technologies		Realm-Local scopes created by different network technologies are
	are considered to be independent and will have different zone		considered to be independent and will have different zone indices
	indices (see RFC 4007, section 6). A router with interfaces		(see Section 6 of [RFC4007]). A router with interfaces on links
	on links using different network technologies does not forward		using different network technologies does not forward traffic
	traffic between the Realm-Local multicast scopes defined by		between the Realm-Local multicast scopes defined by those
	those technologies.		technologies.
	3. Definition of Realm-Local scopes		3. Definition of Realm-Local Scopes
	The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network		The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network
	technology should be published in an RFC. For example, such a scope		technology should be published in an RFC. For example, such a scope
	definition would be appropriate for publication in an "IPv6-over-foo"		definition would be appropriate for publication in an "IPv6-over-foo"
	RFC.		RFC.
	Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will be		Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will be
	added to the IANA 'IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes' registry under the		added to the IANA "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" registry under the
	Realm-Local scope entry, and those specifications must include such a		Realm-Local scope entry, and those specifications must include such a
	request in their IANA Considerations.		request in their IANA Considerations.
	Section 5 of this document gives the definition of scop 3 for IEEE		Section 5 of this document gives the definition of scop 3 for IEEE
	802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4] networks.		802.15.4 [IEEE802.15.4] networks.
	4. Definition of automatic and administratively configured scopes		4. Definition of Automatic and Administratively Configured Scopes
	(updates RFC 4007)		(Updates RFC 4007)
	Section 5 of RFC 4007 [RFC4007] and section 2.7 of RFC 4291 disagree		Section 5 of RFC 4007 [RFC4007] and Section 2.7 of RFC 4291 [RFC4291]
	about the way in which multicast scope 3 is configured. To resolve		disagree on the way in which multicast scop 3 is configured. To
	that disagreement, change the last bullet in the list in section 5 of		resolve that disagreement, the last bullet in the list in Section 5
	RFC 4007 as follows:		of [RFC4007] is updated as follows:
	OLD:		OLD:
	o The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local,		o The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local,
	link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network		link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network
	administrators.		administrators.
	NEW:		NEW:
	o The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6		o The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6
	addressing architecture [RFC4291] and updated by [RFC-to-be].		addressing architecture [RFC4291] and updated by RFC 7346.
	5. Definition of Realm-Local Scope for IEEE 802.15.4		5. Definition of Realm-Local Scope for IEEE 802.15.4
	When used in an IP-over-IEEE802.15.4 network, "scop 3" is defined to		When used in an IP-over-IEEE802.15.4 network, scop 3 is defined to
	include all interfaces sharing a PAN ID.		include all interfaces sharing a Personal Area Network Identifier
			(PAN ID).
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	IANA is requested to establish a sub-registry titled "IPv6 Multicast		IANA has established a sub-registry titled "IPv6 Multicast Address
	Address Scopes" in the existing "Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)		Scopes" in the existing "IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry". The
	Multicast Address Allocations" registry. The new registry is to be		new registry has been populated with the scop values given in
	populated with the scope values given in Section 2. New definitions		Section 2. New definitions for scop values will be made following
	for scop values will be made with "IETF Review" policy.		the "IETF Review" policy [RFC5226].
	IANA is requested to add a reference to the Realm-Local scope entry		For each future RFC that defines a Realm-Local scope for new network
	(scop 3) in the "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" registry for each		technologies (scop 3), IANA will add a reference to the defining
	future RFC that defines a Realm-Local scope for new network		document in the "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" registry. Such RFCs
	technologies. Such RFCs are expected to make an explicit request to		are expected to make an explicit request to IANA for inclusion in the
	IANA for inclusion in the registry.		registry.
	IANA is requested to include a note to the top of the "IPv6 Multicast		IANA has included a note on the top of the "IPv6 Multicast Address
	Address Scopes" registry:		Scopes" registry:
	The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network		The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network
	technology should be published in an RFC. For example, such a		technology should be published in an RFC. For example, such a
	scope definition would be appropriate for publication in an		scope definition would be appropriate for publication in an 'IPv6-
	'IPv6-over-foo' RFC.		over-foo' RFC.
	Any RFCs that define a Realm-Local scope will be listed in this		Any RFCs that define a Realm-Local scope will be listed in this
	registry as an additional reference in the Realm-Local scope		registry as an additional reference in the Realm-Local scope
	entry. Such RFCs are expected to make an explicit request to		entry. Such RFCs are expected to make an explicit request to IANA
	IANA for inclusion in this registry.		for inclusion in this registry.
	7. Acknowledgments		7. Acknowledgments
	Robert Cragie, Kerry Lynn, Jinmei Tatuya, Dave Thaler and Stig Venaas		Robert Cragie, Kerry Lynn, Jinmei Tatuya, Dave Thaler, and Stig
	all contributed text and/or review to ensure that the updates to RFC		Venaas all contributed text and/or review to ensure that the updates
	4007 and RFC 4291 are correct.		to RFC 4007 and RFC 4291 are correct.
	8. Security Considerations		8. Security Considerations
	This document has no security considerations beyond those in RFC 4007		This document has no security considerations beyond those in RFC 4007
	[RFC4007] and RFC 4291 [RFC4291].		[RFC4007] and RFC 4291 [RFC4291].
	9. References		9. References
	9.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and		[RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and
	B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007,		B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007,
	March 2005.		March 2005.
	[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing		[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
	Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.		Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast]
	Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low power
	and Lossy Networks (MPL)", draft-ietf-roll-trickle-
	mcast-09 (work in progress), April 2014.
	[IEEE802.15.4]		[IEEE802.15.4]
	IEEE Std 802.15.4-2006, "IEEE Standard for Information		IEEE Computer Society, "IEEE Std. 802.15.4-2006", October
	technology - Telecommunications and information exchange
	between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks -
	Specific requirements; Part 15.4: Wireless Medium Access
	Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for
	Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)", October
	2006.		2006.
			[MPL] Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low power
			and Lossy Networks (MPL)", Work in Progress, April 2014.
			[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
			IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
			May 2008.
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Ralph Droms		Ralph Droms
	Cisco		Cisco
	1414 Massachusetts Avenue		1414 Massachusetts Avenue
	Boxborough, MA 01719		Boxborough, MA 01719
	USA		USA
	Phone: +1 978 936 1674		Phone: +1 978 936 1674
	Email: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com		EMail: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com
End of changes. 33 change blocks.
	112 lines changed or deleted		104 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/