MBONED Working Group                               David Meyer
Internet Draft                                     Sprint E|Solutions
                                                   Peter Lothberg
                                                   Sprint E|Solutions
Category                                           Best Current Practice
                        GLOP Addressing in 233/8

1. Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

2. Abstract

   This describes a document defines the policy for the use of the class D address space using 233/8 as the for statically
   assigned subset of multicast addresses.  It is envisioned that the class D address space.
   This primary use
   of this space is generally to will be utilized for many to many applications,
   such as non-broadcast many-to-many applications. This allocation is
   in addition to those described on [IANA] (e.g. (e.g., [RFC2365]). The IANA
   has allocated 223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC2770]. This document updates
   RFC 2770.

   This memo is a product of the Multicast  Deployment Working Group
   (MBONED) in the Operations and Management Area of the Internet
   Engineering Task Force. Submit comments to <mboned@ns.uoregon.edu> or
   the author.

3. Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

4. Problem Statement

   Multicast addresses have traditionally been allocated by a dynamic
   mechanism such as SDR [SAP]. [RFC2974]. However, many current multicast
   deployment models are not amenable to dynamic allocation. For
   example, many content aggregators require group addresses which that are
   fixed on a time scale which that is not amenable to allocation by a
   mechanism such as described in [SAP]. [RFC2974]. Perhaps more seriously,
   since there isn't is not general consensus by providers, content
   aggregators, or application writers as to the allocation mechanism,
   the Internet is left without a coherent multicast address allocation
   scheme.

   The MALLOC working group has created a specific strategy for global
   multicast address allocation [RFC2730, RFC2909]. However, this
   approach has not been widely implemented or deployed. This document
   proposes a solution for a subset of the problem, namely, those cases
   not covered by Source Specific Multicast [SS].

5. Address Space

   The IANA has allocated 223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC277]. [RFC2770]. RFC 2770
   describes the administration of the middle two octetes octets of 233/8 in a
   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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |      233      |           16 bits AS          |  local bits   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

5.1. Example

   Consider, for example, AS 5662. Written in binary, left padded with
   0s, we get 0001011000011110. Mapping the high order octet to the
   second octet of the address, and the low order octet to the third
   octet, we get 233.22.30/24.

6. Allocation

   As mentioned above, the allocation proposed here follows the RFC1797
   (case 1) allocation scheme, modified as follows: the high order high-order octet
   has the value 233, and the next 16 bits are a previously assigned
   Autonomous System number (AS), as registered by a network registry
   and listed in the RWhois database system. This allows a single /24
   per AS.

   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
   does not require a an additional registration step.

6.1. Private AS Space

   The address space 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].

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
   to denial of space denial-of-service attacks based on dynamic allocation. Further,
   since dynamic assignment does not cross domain boundaries, well known well-known
   intra-domain security techniques can be applied.

8.

9. IANA Considerations

   The IANA should assign 233/8 for this purpose.

9.

10. Acknowledgments

   This idea proposal originated with Peter Lothberg's idea that we use the
   same allocation (AS based) as described in RFC 1797 in the class D address
   space. 1797. Randy Bush and
   Mark Handley contributed many insightful
   comments.

10. comments, and Pete and
   Natalie Whiting contributed greatly to the readability of this
   document.

11. References

   [IANA]          http://www.iana.org/numbers.html

   [RFC1797]       IANA, "Class A Subnet Experiment", RFC 1797,
                   April, 1995.

   [RFC1930]       J. Hawkinson, et. al., "Guidelines for creation,
                   selection, and registration of an Autonomous
                   System (AS)", RFC1930, RFC 1930, March, 1996.

   [RFC2365]       David Meyer, "Administratively Scoped IP
                   Multicast", RFC 2365, July, 1998.

   [RFC2374]       R. Hinden, et. al., "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global
                   Unicast Address Format", RFC 2374, July, 1998.

   [RFC2730]       B. Patel, et. al., "Multicast Address Dynamic
                   Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC2730, RFC 2730,
                   December, 1999.

   [RFC2770]       D. Meyer and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in
                   233/8", RFC 2770, Feburary, 2000.

   [RFC2909]       D. Estrin, et. al., "The Multicast Address-Set
                   Claim (MASC) Protocol", RFC2909, RFC 2909, September 2000.

   [RFC2974]       M. Handley, et. al.,  "Session Announcement
                   Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.

   [RFC3138]       D. Meyer  "Extended Assignmentns in 233/8", RFC
                   3138, June 2001.

   [SAP]           Handley, Mark, "SAP: Session Announcement
                   Protocol", draft-ietf-mmusic-sap-00.txt, November,
   1996.

   [SS]            www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/single-source-
   multicast

11.            www.iana.org/assignments/single-source-multicast

12. Author's Address

   David Meyer
   Sprint
   VARESA0104
   12502 Sunrise Valley Drive
   Reston VA, 20196
   Email: dmm@sprint.net

   Peter Lothberg
   Sprint
   VARESA0104
   12502 Sunrise Valley Drive
   Reston VA, 20196
   Email: roll@sprint.net

12.

13. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.