draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-00.txt   draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-01.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 skipping to change at page 1, line 33
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
2. Abstract 2. Abstract
This describes a policy for use of the class D address space using This document defines the policy for the use of 233/8 for statically
233/8 as the statically assigned subset of the class D address space. assigned multicast addresses. It is envisioned that the primary use
This space is generally to be utilized for many to many applications, of this space will be many-to-many applications. This allocation is
such as non-broadcast applications. This allocation is in addition in addition to those described on [IANA] (e.g., [RFC2365]). The IANA
to those described on [IANA] (e.g. [RFC2365]). The IANA has allocated has allocated 223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC2770]. This document updates
223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC2770]. This document updates RFC 2770. RFC 2770.
This memo is a product of the Multicast Deployment Working Group This memo is a product of the Multicast Deployment Working Group
(MBONED) in the Operations and Management Area of the Internet (MBONED) in the Operations and Management Area of the Internet
Engineering Task Force. Submit comments to <mboned@ns.uoregon.edu> or Engineering Task Force. Submit comments to <mboned@ns.uoregon.edu> or
the author. the author.
3. Copyright Notice 3. Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
4. Problem Statement 4. Problem Statement
Multicast addresses have traditionally been allocated by a dynamic Multicast addresses have traditionally been allocated by a dynamic
mechanism such as SDR [SAP]. However, many current multicast mechanism such as SDR [RFC2974]. However, many current multicast
deployment models are not amenable to dynamic allocation. For deployment models are not amenable to dynamic allocation. For
example, many content aggregators require group addresses which are example, many content aggregators require group addresses that are
fixed on a time scale which is not amenable to allocation by a fixed on a time scale that is not amenable to allocation by a
mechanism such as described in [SAP]. Perhaps more seriously, since mechanism such as described in [RFC2974]. Perhaps more seriously,
there isn't general consensus by providers, content aggregators, or since there is not general consensus by providers, content
application writers as to the allocation mechanism, the Internet is aggregators, or application writers as to the allocation mechanism,
left without a coherent multicast address allocation scheme. the Internet is left without a coherent multicast address allocation
scheme.
The MALLOC working group has created a specific strategy for global The MALLOC working group has created a specific strategy for global
multicast address allocation [RFC2730, RFC2909]. However, this multicast address allocation [RFC2730, RFC2909]. However, this
approach has not been widely implemented or deployed. This document approach has not been widely implemented or deployed. This document
proposes a solution for a subset of the problem, namely, those cases proposes a solution for a subset of the problem, namely, those cases
not covered by Source Specific Multicast [SS]. not covered by Source Specific Multicast [SS].
5. Address Space 5. Address Space
The IANA has allocated 223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC277]. RFC 2770 The IANA has allocated 223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC2770]. RFC 2770
describes the administration of middle two octetes of 233/8 in a describes the administration of the middle two octets of 233/8 in a
manner similar to that described in RFC1797: manner similar to that described in RFC1797:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 233 | 16 bits AS | local bits | | 233 | 16 bits AS | local bits |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.1. Example 5.1. Example
Consider, for example, AS 5662. Written in binary, left padded with Consider, for example, AS 5662. Written in binary, left padded with
0s, we get 0001011000011110. Mapping the high order octet to the 0s, we get 0001011000011110. Mapping the high order octet to the
second octet of the address, and the low order octet to the third second octet of the address, and the low order octet to the third
octet, we get 233.22.30/24. octet, we get 233.22.30/24.
6. Allocation 6. Allocation
As mentioned above, the allocation proposed here follows the RFC1797 As mentioned above, the allocation proposed here follows the RFC1797
(case 1) allocation scheme, modified as follows: the high order octet (case 1) allocation scheme, modified as follows: the high-order octet
has the value 233, and the next 16 bits are a previously assigned has the value 233, and the next 16 bits are a previously assigned
Autonomous System number (AS), as registered by a network registry Autonomous System number (AS), as registered by a network registry
and listed in the RWhois database system. This allows a single /24 and listed in the RWhois database system. This allows a single /24
per AS. per AS.
As was the case with RFC1797, using the AS number in this way allows As was the case with RFC1797, using the AS number in this way allows
automatic assignment of a single /24 to each service provider and automatic assignment of a single /24 to each service provider and
does not require a registration step. does not require an additional registration step.
6.1. Private AS Space 6.1. Private AS Space
The address space mapped to the private AS space [RFC1930] is The part of 233/8 that is mapped to the private AS space [RFC1930] is
assigned to the IRRs to assign as per their local policy [RFC3138]. assigned to the IRRs [RFC3138].
7. Security Considerations 7. Large AS Numbers
It is important to note that this approach will work only for two
octet AS numbers. In particular, it does not work for any AS number
extension scheme.
8. Security Considerations
The approach described here may have the effect of reduced exposure The approach described here may have the effect of reduced exposure
to denial of space attacks based on dynamic allocation. Further, to denial-of-service attacks based on dynamic allocation. Further,
since dynamic assignment does not cross domain boundaries, well known since dynamic assignment does not cross domain boundaries, well-known
intra-domain security techniques can be applied. intra-domain security techniques can be applied.
8. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
The IANA should assign 233/8 for this purpose. The IANA should assign 233/8 for this purpose.
9. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
This idea originated with Peter Lothberg's idea that we use the same This proposal originated with Peter Lothberg's idea that we use the
allocation (AS based) as described in RFC 1797 in the class D address same allocation (AS based) as described in RFC 1797. Randy Bush and
space. Randy Bush and Mark Handley contributed many insightful Mark Handley contributed many insightful comments, and Pete and
comments. Natalie Whiting contributed greatly to the readability of this
document.
10. References 11. References
[IANA] http://www.iana.org/numbers.html [IANA] http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
[RFC1797] IANA, "Class A Subnet Experiment", RFC 1797, [RFC1797] IANA, "Class A Subnet Experiment", RFC 1797,
April, 1995. April, 1995.
[RFC1930] J. Hawkinson, et. al., "Guidelines for creation, [RFC1930] J. Hawkinson, et. al., "Guidelines for creation,
selection, and registration of an Autonomous selection, and registration of an Autonomous
System (AS)", RFC1930, March, 1996. System (AS)", RFC1930, March, 1996.
[RFC2365] David Meyer, "Administratively Scoped IP [RFC2365] David Meyer, "Administratively Scoped IP
Multicast", July, 1998. Multicast", RFC 2365, July, 1998.
[RFC2374] R. Hinden, et. al., "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global [RFC2374] R. Hinden, et. al., "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global
Unicast Address Format", July, 1998. Unicast Address Format", RFC 2374, July, 1998.
[RFC2730] B. Patel, et. al., "Multicast Address Dynamic [RFC2730] B. Patel, et. al., "Multicast Address Dynamic
Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC2730, Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC2730,
December, 1999. December, 1999.
[RFC2770] D. Meyer and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in [RFC2770] D. Meyer and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in
233/8", RFC 2770, Feburary, 2000. 233/8", RFC 2770, Feburary, 2000.
[RFC2909] D. Estrin, et. al., "The Multicast Address-Set [RFC2909] D. Estrin, et. al., "The Multicast Address-Set
Claim (MASC) Protocol", RFC2909, September 2000. Claim (MASC) Protocol", RFC2909, September 2000.
[RFC2974] M. Handley, et. al., "Session Announcement
Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.
[RFC3138] D. Meyer "Extended Assignmentns in 233/8", RFC [RFC3138] D. Meyer "Extended Assignmentns in 233/8", RFC
3138, June 2001. 3138, June 2001.
[SAP] Handley, Mark, "SAP: Session Announcement [SS] www.iana.org/assignments/single-source-multicast
Protocol", draft-ietf-mmusic-sap-00.txt, November,
1996.
[SS] www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/single-source-
multicast
11. Author's Address 12. Author's Address
David Meyer David Meyer
Sprint Sprint
VARESA0104 VARESA0104
12502 Sunrise Valley Drive 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston VA, 20196 Reston VA, 20196
Email: dmm@sprint.net Email: dmm@sprint.net
Peter Lothberg Peter Lothberg
Sprint Sprint
VARESA0104 VARESA0104
12502 Sunrise Valley Drive 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston VA, 20196 Reston VA, 20196
Email: roll@sprint.net Email: roll@sprint.net
12. Full Copyright Statement 13. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.25, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/