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/