draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-01.txt   rfc3180.txt 
MBONED Working Group David Meyer Network Working Group D. Meyer
Internet Draft Sprint E|Solutions Request for Comments: 3180 P. Lothberg
Peter Lothberg Obsoletes: 2770 Sprint
Sprint E|Solutions BCP: 53 September 2001
Category Best Current Practice 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 GLOP Addressing in 233/8
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Status of this Memo
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 This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Copyright Notice
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
2. Abstract Abstract
This document defines the policy for the use of 233/8 for statically This document defines the policy for the use of 233/8 for statically
assigned multicast addresses. It is envisioned that the primary use assigned multicast addresses.
of this space will be many-to-many applications. This allocation is
in addition to those described on [IANA] (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 1. Introduction
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. It is envisioned that the primary use of this space will be many-to-
many applications. This allocation is in addition to those described
on [IANA] (e.g., [RFC2365]). The IANA has allocated 223/8 as per RFC
2770 [RFC2770]. This document obsoletes RFC 2770.
4. Problem Statement 2. Problem Statement
Multicast addresses have traditionally been allocated by a dynamic Multicast addresses have traditionally been allocated by a dynamic
mechanism such as SDR [RFC2974]. 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 that are example, many content aggregators require group addresses that are
fixed on a time scale that 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 [RFC2974]. Perhaps more seriously, mechanism such as described in [RFC2974]. Perhaps more seriously,
since there is not general consensus by providers, content since there is not general consensus by providers, content
aggregators, or application writers as to the allocation mechanism, aggregators, or application writers as to the allocation mechanism,
the Internet is left without a coherent multicast address allocation the Internet is left without a coherent multicast address allocation
scheme. 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.
5. Address Space 3. Address Space
The IANA has allocated 223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC2770]. RFC 2770 The IANA has allocated 223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC2770]. RFC 2770
describes the administration of the middle two octets 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 3.1. 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 4. 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 an additional registration step. does not require an additional registration step.
6.1. Private AS Space 4.1. Private AS Space
The part of 233/8 that is 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 [RFC3138]. assigned to the IRRs [RFC3138].
7. Large AS Numbers 5. Large AS Numbers
It is important to note that this approach will work only for two 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 octet AS numbers. In particular, it does not work for any AS number
extension scheme. extension scheme.
8. Security Considerations 6. 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-service 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.
9. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
The IANA should assign 233/8 for this purpose. The IANA has assigned 233/8 for this purpose.
10. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
This proposal originated with Peter Lothberg's idea that we use the This proposal originated with Peter Lothberg's idea that we use the
same allocation (AS based) as described in RFC 1797. Randy Bush and same allocation (AS based) as described in RFC 1797. Randy Bush and
Mark Handley contributed many insightful comments, and Pete and Mark Handley contributed many insightful comments, and Pete and
Natalie Whiting contributed greatly to the readability of this Natalie Whiting contributed greatly to the readability of this
document. document.
11. References 9. 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,
selection, and registration of an Autonomous
System (AS)", RFC 1930, March, 1996.
[RFC2365] David Meyer, "Administratively Scoped IP [RFC1930] Hawkinson, J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for creation,
Multicast", RFC 2365, July, 1998. selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)",
RFC 1930, March 1996.
[RFC2374] R. Hinden, et. al., "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global [RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC
Unicast Address Format", RFC 2374, July, 1998. 2365, July 1998.
[RFC2730] B. Patel, et. al., "Multicast Address Dynamic [RFC2374] Hinden, R., O'Dell, M. and S. Deering, "An IPv6
Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC 2730, Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format", RFC 2374, July
December, 1999. 1998.
[RFC2770] D. Meyer and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in [RFC2730] Hanna, S., Patel, B. and M. Shah, "Multicast Address
233/8", RFC 2770, Feburary, 2000. Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC 2730,
December 1999.
[RFC2909] D. Estrin, et. al., "The Multicast Address-Set [RFC2770] Meyer, D. and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", RFC
Claim (MASC) Protocol", RFC 2909, September 2000. 2770, February 2000.
[RFC2974] M. Handley, et. al., "Session Announcement [RFC2909] Radoslavov, P., Estrin, D., Govindan, R., Handley, M.,
Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000. Kumar, S. and D. Thaler, "The Multicast Address-Set Claim
(MASC) Protocol", RFC 2909, September 2000.
[RFC3138] D. Meyer "Extended Assignmentns in 233/8", RFC [RFC2974] Handley, M., Perkins, C. and E. Whelan, "Session
3138, June 2001. Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.
[SS] www.iana.org/assignments/single-source-multicast [RFC3138] Meyer, D., "Extended Assignments in 233/8", RFC 3138, June
2001.
12. Author's Address 10. Authors' Addresses
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
13. Full Copyright Statement EMail: roll@sprint.net
11. 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
skipping to change at line 206 skipping to change at page 5, line 32
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 

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