--- 1/draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-02.txt 2008-06-24 21:12:15.000000000 +0200 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-03.txt 2008-06-24 21:12:15.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,438 +1,465 @@ -INTERNET-DRAFT Z. Albanna -draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-02.txt K. Almeroth - M. Cotton - D. Meyer -Category Best Current Practice +Network Working Group M. Cotton +Internet-Draft ICANN +Intended status: BCP D. Meyer +Expires: December 26, 2008 June 24, 2008 + IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments - + draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-03 -Status of this Document +Status of this Memo - This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with - all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. + By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any + applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware + have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes + aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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 + 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. - This document is a product of the ABC working group. Comments should - be addressed to the authors, or the mailing list at - -Copyright Notice - - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. + This Internet-Draft will expire on December 26, 2008. Abstract - The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority is charged with allocating - parameter values for fields in protocols which have been designed, - created or are maintained by the Internet Engineering Task Force. - This document provides guidelines for the assignment of the IPv4 IP - multicast address space. + This document obsoletes RFC 3171. It provides guidance for the + Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) in assigning IPv4 + multicast addresses. Table of Contents - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2. Definition of Current Assignment Practice. . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3. Local Network Control Block (224.0.0/24) . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 4. Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1/24). . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 4.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5. AD-HOC Block (224.0.2/24 - 224.0.255/24) . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 6. SDP/SAP Block (224.2/16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 6.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 7. Source Specific Multicast Block (232/8). . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 7.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 8. GLOP Block (233/8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 8.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 9. Administratively Scoped Address Block (239/8). . . . . . . . . 7 - 9.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 9.1.1. Relative Offsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 10. Annual Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 10.1. Address Reclamation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 11. Usable IPv4 Multicast Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 11.1. IGMP-snooping switches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 11.2. Unusable Inter-domain Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 11.2.1. Administratively Scoped Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 11.2.2. Special Use IPv4 Source Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 12. Use of IANA Reserved Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 14. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 16. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 17. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 18. Author's Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 19. Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 20. Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 21. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3. Definition of Current Assignment Practice . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 4. Local Network Control Block (224.0.0/24) . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 4.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 5. Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1/24) . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 5.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 6. AD-HOC Blocks (including 224.0.2.0/24 - 224.0.255.0/24) . . . 5 + 6.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 7. SDP/SAP Block (224.2/16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 7.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 8. Source Specific Multicast Block (232/8) . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 8.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 9. GLOP Block (233/8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 9.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 9.2. Extended AD-HOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 10. Administratively Scoped Address Block (239/8) . . . . . . . . 6 + 10.1. Assignment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 11. Application Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 11.1. Size of assignments of IPv4 Multicast Addresses . . . . . 7 + 12. Annual Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 12.1. Address Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 12.2. Positive renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 13. Use of IANA Reserved Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Introduction The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (www.iana.org) is charged with allocating parameter values for fields in protocols which have been designed, created or are maintained by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). RFC 2780 [RFC2780] provides the IANA guidance in the assignment of parameters for fields in newly developed protocols. This memo expands on section 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 and attempts to codify existing IANA practice used in the assignment IPv4 multicast addresses. - The key words "MUST"", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", + This document is a revision of RFC 3171 [RFC3171], which it + obsoletes. It should retain RFC 3171's status as BCP 51. It also + obsoletes RFC 3138 [RFC3138]." + + The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval", + "IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to + refer to the processes described in [RFC2434]. The keywords MUST, + MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, + SHOULD, SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined in [RFC2119]. + + In general, due to the relatively small size of the IPv4 multicast + address space, further assignment of IPv4 multicast address space is + recommended only in limited circumstances. Specifically, the IANA + should only assign addresses in those cases where the dynamic + selection (SDP/SAP), GLOP, SSM or Administratively Scoped address + spaces cannot be used. The guidelines described below are reflected + in . + +2. Terminology + + The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this - document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC 2119]. + document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 + [RFC2119]. -2. Definition of Current Assignment Practice + The word "allocation" is defined as a block of addresses managed by a + registry for the purpose of making assignments and allocations. The + word "assignment" is defined a block of addresses, or a single + address, registered to an end-user for use on a specific network, or + set of networks. + +3. Definition of Current Assignment Practice Unlike IPv4 unicast address assignment, where blocks of addresses are - delegated to regional registries, IPv4 multicast addresses are - assigned directly by the IANA. Current assignments appear as follows - [IANA]: + delegated to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), IPv4 multicast + addresses are assigned directly by the IANA. Current registration + groups appear as follows [IANA]: - 224.0.0.0 - 224.0.0.255 (224.0.0/24) Local Network Control Block - 224.0.1.0 - 224.0.1.255 (224.0.1/24) Internetwork Control Block - 224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.0 AD-HOC Block - 224.1.0.0 - 224.1.255.255 (224.1/16) RESERVED - 224.2.0.0 - 224.2.255.255 (224.2/16) SDP/SAP Block - 224.3.0.0 - 231.255.255.255 RESERVED - 232.0.0.0 - 232.255.255.255 (232/8) Source Specific Multicast Block - 233.0.0.0 - 233.255.255.255 (233/8) GLOP Block - 234.0.0.0 - 238.255.255.255 RESERVED - 239.0.0.0 - 239.255.255.255 (239/8) Administratively Scoped Block +224.0.0.0 - 224.0.0.255 224.0.0/24 Local Network Control Block + +224.0.1.0 - 224.0.1.255 224.0.1/24 Internetwork Control Block + +224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.0 64769 AD-HOC Block (1) + +224.1.0.0 - 224.1.255.255 224.1/16 RESERVED + +224.2.0.0 - 224.2.255.255 224.2/16 SDP/SAP Block + +224.252.0.0 - 224.255.255.255 224.252/14 RESERVED + +225.0.0.0 - 231.255.255.255 7 /8s RESERVED + +232.0.0.0 - 232.255.255.255 232/8 Source Specific Multicast Block + +233.0.0.0 - 233.251.255.255 16515072 GLOP Block + +233.252.0.0 - 233.255.255.255 233.252/14 AD-HOC Block (2) + +234.0.0.0 - 238.255.255.255 5 /8s RESERVED + +239.0.0.0 - 239.255.255.255 239/8 Administratively Scoped Block The IANA generally assigns addresses from the Local Network Control, - Internetwork Control, and AD-HOC blocks. Assignment guidelines for + Internetwork Control and AD-HOC blocks. Assignment guidelines for each of these blocks, as well as for the Source Specific Multicast, GLOP and Administratively Scoped Blocks, are described below. -3. Local Network Control Block (224.0.0/24) +4. Local Network Control Block (224.0.0/24) Addresses in the Local Network Control block are used for protocol - control traffic that is not forwarded off link. Examples of this type - of use include OSPFIGP All Routers (224.0.0.5) [RFC2328]. + control traffic that is not forwarded off link. Examples of this + type of use include OSPFIGP All Routers (224.0.0.5) [RFC2328]. -3.1. Assignment Guidelines +4.1. Assignment Guidelines - Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 [RFC2780], assignments from the - Local Network Control block follow an Expert Review, IESG Approval or - Standards Action process. See [IANA] for the current set of + Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of [RFC2780], assignments from the Local + Network Control block follow an Expert Review, IESG Approval or + Standards Action process. See IANA [IANA] for the current set of assignments. -4. Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1/24) +5. Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1/24) Addresses in the Internetwork Control block are used for protocol - control that must be forwarded through the Internet. Examples include + control that MAY be forwarded through the Internet. Examples include 224.0.1.1 (NTP [RFC2030]) and 224.0.1.68 (mdhcpdiscover [RFC2730]). -4.1. Assignment Guidelines +5.1. Assignment Guidelines - Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 [RFC2780], assignments from the + Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of [RFC2780], assignments from the Internetwork Control block follow an Expert Review, IESG Approval or - Standards Action process. See [IANA] for the current set of + Standards Action process. See IANA [IANA] for the current set of assignments. -5. AD-HOC Block (224.0.2/24 - 224.0.255/24) +6. AD-HOC Blocks (including 224.0.2.0/24 - 224.0.255.0/24) - Addresses in the AD-HOC block have traditionally been assigned for - those applications that don't fit in either the Local or Internetwork - Control blocks. These addresses are globally routed and are typically - used by applications that require small blocks of addressing (e.g., - less than a /24). + Addresses in the AD-HOC blocks were traditionally used for + assignments for those applications that don't fit in either the Local + or Internetwork Control blocks. These addresses are globally routed + and are typically used by applications that require small blocks of + addressing (e.g., less than a /24 ). Future assignments of blocks of + addresses that do not fit in the Local or Internetwork block will be + made in the Extended block. -5.1. Assignment Guidelines +6.1. Assignment Guidelines In general, the IANA SHOULD NOT assign addressing in the AD-HOC - Block. However, the IANA may under special special circumstances, - assign addressing from this block. Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of RFC - 2780 [RFC2780], assignments from the AD-HOC block follow an Expert - Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. See [IANA] for the + Block. However, the IANA MAY under special circumstances, assign + addresses from this block. Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of [RFC2780], + assignments from the AD-HOC block follow an Expert Review, IESG + Approval or Standards Action process. See IANA [IANA] for the current set of assignments. -6. SDP/SAP Block (224.2/16) +7. SDP/SAP Block (224.2/16) Addresses in the SDP/SAP block are used by applications that receive addresses through the Session Announcement Protocol [RFC2974] for use via applications like the session directory tool (such as SDR [SDR]). -6.1. Assignment Guidelines +7.1. Assignment Guidelines Since addresses in the SDP/SAP block are chosen randomly from the range of addresses not already in use [RFC2974], no IANA assignment policy is required. Note that while no additional IANA assignment is required, addresses in the SDP/SAP block are explicitly for use by SDP/SAP and MUST NOT be used for other purposes. -7. Source Specific Multicast Block (232/8) +8. Source Specific Multicast Block (232/8) The Source Specific Multicast (SSM) is an extension of IP Multicast in which traffic is forwarded to receivers from only those multicast sources for which the receivers have explicitly expressed interest, and is primarily targeted at one-to-many (broadcast) applications. Note that this block as initially assigned to the VMTP transient - groups [IANA]. + groups IANA [IANA]. -7.1. Assignment Guidelines +8.1. Assignment Guidelines Because the SSM model essentially makes the entire multicast address - space local to the host, no IANA assignment policy is required. Note, - however, that while no additional IANA assignment is required, + space local to the host, no IANA assignment policy is required. + Note, however, that while no additional IANA assignment is required, addresses in the SSM block are explicitly for use by SSM and MUST NOT be used for other purposes. -8. GLOP Block (233/8) +9. GLOP Block (233/8) Addresses in the GLOP block are globally scoped statically assigned - addresses. The assignment is made by mapping a domain's autonomous - system number into the middle two octets of 233.X.Y.0/24. The mapping - and assignment is defined in [RFC2770]. + addresses. The assignment is made, for a domain with 16 bit + Autonomous System Number (ASN), by mapping a domain's autonomous the + number, expressed in octets as X.Y, system number into the middle two + octets of of the GLOP block, yielding an assignment of 233.X.Y.0/24. + The mapping and assignment is defined in [RFC3180]. Domains with 32 + bit ASN should apply for space in the Extended AD-HOC block. -8.1. Assignment Guidelines +9.1. Assignment Guidelines Because addresses in the GLOP block are algorithmically pre-assigned, - no IANA assignment policy is required. In addition, RFC 3138 - [RFC3138] delegates assignment of the GLOP sub-block mapped by the - RFC 1930 [RFC1930] private AS space (233.252.0.0 - 233.255.255.255) - to the Internet Routing Registries. Note that while no additional - IANA assignment is required, addresses in the GLOP block are - assigned for use as defined in RFC 2770 and MUST NOT be used for - other purposes. + no IANA assignment policy is required. -9. Administratively Scoped Address Block (239/8) +9.2. Extended AD-HOC + + [RFC3138] delegated assignment of the GLOP sub-block mapped by the + [RFC1930] private AS space (233.252.0.0 - 233.255.255.255) to the + RIRs. This space was known as eGLOP. The RIRs did not develop + policies or the mechanisms for the assignment of the eGLOP space and + it is important to make this space available for use by network + operators. It is therefore appropriate to obsolete RFC 3138 and + classify this address range as available for AD-HOC assignment as per + the guidelines in section 6. + +10. Administratively Scoped Address Block (239/8) Addresses in the Administratively Scoped Address block are for local use within a domain and are described in [RFC2365]. -9.1. Assignment Guidelines +10.1. Assignment Guidelines Since addresses in this block are local to a domain, no IANA assignment policy is required. -9.1.1. Relative Offsets +10.1.1. Relative Offsets The relative offsets [RFC2365] are used to ensure that a service can - be located independent of the extent of the enclosing scope (see RFC - 2770 for details). Since there are only 256 such offsets, the IANA - should only assign a relative offset to a protocol that provides an - infrastructure supporting service. Examples of such services include - the Session Announcement Protocol [RFC2974]. Pursuant to section - 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 [RFC2780], assignments of Relative Offsets follow - an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. See + be located independent of the extent of the enclosing scope (see + [RFC3180] for details). Since there are only 256 such offsets, the + IANA should only assign a relative offset to a protocol that provides + an infrastructure supporting service. Examples of such services + include the Session Announcement Protocol [RFC2974]. Pursuant to + section 4.4.2 of [RFC2780], assignments of Relative Offsets follow an + Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. See IANA [IANA] for the current set of assignments. -10. Annual Review +11. Application Form - Given the dynamic nature of IPv4 multicast and its associated - infrastructure, and the previously undocumented IPv4 multicast - address assignment guidelines, the IANA should conduct an annual - review of currently assigned addresses. + Requests for multicast address assignments can be submitted through + the application form on the IANA web site at: -10.1. Address Reclamation + - During the review described above, addresses that were mis-assigned - should, where possible, be reclaimed or reassigned. + It is important to submit sufficient detail to allow the IESG + designated expert to review the application. If the details given in + the request are not clear, or further information is needed, the IESG + designated expert may request additional information before assigning + an address. - The IANA should also review assignments reclaim those addresses that - are not in use on the global Internet (i.e, those applications which - can use SSM, GLOP, or Administratively Scoped addressing, or are not - globally routed). +11.1. Size of assignments of IPv4 Multicast Addresses -11. Usable IPv4 Multicast Addresses + Occasionally, more than one multicast address is required. In these + cases multiple addresses are available in the Extended AD-HOC block. + Where a very large number of addresses is required, the assignment + will be staged, with additional stages only being made after the + complete use of the initial assignment(s). - Multicast datagrams that match the criteria in this section SHOULD - NOT be used, even on local, unrouted subnetworks. + A separate document describing the policy governing assignment of + addresses in the AD-HOC and Extended AD-HOC blocks will be developed + and published. The format, location and content has not yet been + decided and so these will be documented in a future version of this + document. -11.1. IGMP-snooping switches +12. Annual Review - RFC 1112 [RFC1112] describes the mapping of IPv4 Multicast Group - addresses to Ethernet MAC addresses, as follows: + Given the dynamic nature of IPv4 multicast and its associated infra- + structure, and the previously undocumented IPv4 multicast address + assignment guidelines, the IANA should conduct an annual review of + currently assigned addresses. - An IP host group address is mapped to an Ethernet multicast - address by placing the low-order 23-bits of the IP address into - the low-order 23 bits of the Ethernet multicast address - 01-00-5E-00-00-00 (hex). Because there are 28 significant bits - in an IP host group address, more than one host group address - may map to the same Ethernet multicast address. +12.1. Address Reclamation - Now, note that multicast group addresses in the 224.0.0.0/24 range - are used for local subnetwork control (see section 3 above). Under - the RFC 1112 mapping, this maps to the Ethernet multicast address - range 01-00-5E-00-00-XX, where XX is 00 through FF. Ethernet frames - within this range are always processed in the control plane of many - popular network devices, such as IGMP-snooping switches. + During the review described above, addresses that were mis-assigned + should, where possible, be reclaimed or reassigned. - Because of the many-to-one mapping of IPv4 Multicast Group Addresses - to Ethernet MAC addresses, it is possible to overwhelm the control - plane of network devices by sending to group addresses that map into - the 01-00-5E-00-00-XX (hex) range. + The IANA should also review assignments in the AD-HOC, DIS Transient + Groups, and ST Multicast Groups [RFC1190] blocks and reclaim those + addresses that are not in use on the global Internet (i.e, those + applications which can use SSM, GLOP, or Administratively Scoped + addressing, or are not globally routed). - IGMP-snooping network devices must also flood these frames to all - outgoing ports, so the damage may extend to end systems and routers. +12.2. Positive renewal -11.2. Unusable Inter-domain Groups + It is occasionally appropriate to make temporary assignments that can + be renewed as necessary. In cases where this happens the registrant + needs to positively request an extension to the temporary assignment + or the addresses assigned. When the IANA has not received a request + to renew the registration of a temporary assignment within 30 days of + the expiry of the assignment it MUST be removed from the multicast + registry. - Multicast datagrams that match the criteria in this section SHOULD - NOT be routed between administrative domains. + Addresses returned to the IANA when a temporary assignment ends MUST + NOT be assigned for at least one calendar year. -11.2.1. Administratively Scoped Addresses +13. Use of IANA Reserved Addresses - RFC 2365 [RFC2365] defines 239.0.0.0/8 for use within an - administrative domain. As such, datagrams with group addresses that - match 239.0.0.0/8 SHOULD NOT be passed between administrative - domains. + Applications MUST NOT use addressing in the IANA reserved blocks. -11.2.2. Special Use IPv4 Source Addresses +14. IANA Considerations - RFC 1918 [RFC1918] defines certain ranges of IPv4 unicast addresses - that can be used within an administrative domain. Multicast - datagrams are no exception to the rule that datagrams addressed - within these ranges SHOULD NOT be passed between administrative - domains. Examples include 127.0.0.0/8, which is widely used for - internal host addressing, and is generally not valid on datagrams - passed between hosts. 0.0.0.0/8 and 169.254.0.0/16 are also valid - only in the context of local links. Such source addresses are not - valid for datagrams passed between networks[RFC330]. Finally - 192.0.2.0/24 is reserved for documentation and example code. - [RFC3330]. + This document is all about IANA Considerations. -12. Use of IANA Reserved Addresses +15. Security Considerations - Applications MUST NOT use addressing in the IANA reserved blocks. + The assignment guidelines described in this document do not alter the + security properties of either the Any Source or Source Specific + multicast service models. -13. IANA Considerations +16. Acknowledgments - This document provides guidelines for the IANA to use in assigning - IPv4 multicast addresses. It does not create any new namespaces for - the IANA to manage [RFC2434]. + The authors would like to thank Joe St. Sauver, John Meylor, Randy + Bush, Thomas Narten, Marshall Eubanks, Zaid Albanna (co-author of + RFC3171), Kevin Almeroth (co-author of RFC3171) and Leo Vegoda for + their constructive feedback and comments. -14. Acknowledgments +17. References - The authors would like to thank Scott Bradner, Randy Bush, John - Meylor, Thomas Narten, Joe St. Sauver, and Beau Williamson for their - constructive feedback and comments. Bill Nickless contributed the - text in section 11 describing IPv4 multicast unusable group and - source addresses. +17.1. Normative References -15. Security Considerations + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - The assignment guidelines described in this document do not alter the - security properties of either the Any Source or Source Specific - multicast service models. +17.2. Informative References -16. Normative References + [IANA] IANA, "IANA Matrix for Protocol Parameter Assignment/ + Registration Procedures", + . - [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP - multicasting", RFC 1112, August, 1989. + [RFC1190] Casner, S., Lynn, C., Park, P., Schroder, K., and C. + Topolcic, "Experimental Internet Stream Protocol: Version + 2 (ST-II)", RFC 1190, October 1990. - [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y. et. al., "Address Allocation for - Private Internets", RFC 1918, February, 1996. + [RFC1930] Hawkinson, J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for creation, + selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)", + BCP 6, RFC 1930, March 1996. - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to - Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, - 1997. + [RFC2030] Mills, D., "Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4 + for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI", RFC 2030, October 1996. - [RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP - Multicast", RFC 2365, July 1998. + [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. - [RFC3330] IANA, "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3330, - September, 2002. + [RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23, + RFC 2365, July 1998. -17. Informative References + [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an + IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, + October 1998. - [IANA] http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses + [RFC2730] Hanna, S., Patel, B., and M. Shah, "Multicast Address + Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC 2730, + December 1999. - [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- - Revision 3", RFC 2026/BCP 9, October, 1996. + [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For + Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", + BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000. - [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations - Involved in the IETF Standards Process", RFC - 2028/BCP 11, October, 1996. + [RFC2974] Handley, M., Perkins, C., and E. Whelan, "Session + Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000. - [RFC2434] Narten, T., and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for - Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", - RFC 2434/BCP 26, October 1998. + [RFC3138] Meyer, D., "Extended Assignments in 233/8", RFC 3138, + June 2001. -18. Author's Addresses + [RFC3171] Albanna, Z., Almeroth, K., Meyer, D., and M. Schipper, + "IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments", + BCP 51, RFC 3171, August 2001. - Zaid Albanna - Email: zaid@juniper.net + [RFC3180] Meyer, D. and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", + BCP 53, RFC 3180, September 2001. - Kevin Almeroth - Email: almeroth@cs.ucsb.edu +Authors' Addresses - David Meyer - Email: dmm@1-4-5.net + Michelle Cotton + Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers + 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 + Marina del Rey 90292 + United States - Michelle S. Cotton - Email: iana@iana.org + Phone: +310-823-9358 + Email: michelle.cotton@icann.org + URI: http://www.iana.org/ -19. Full Copyright Statement + David Meyer - Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject - to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and - except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. + Email: dmm@1-4-5.net - 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. +Full Copyright Statement - The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be - revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. + Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). - 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. + This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions + contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors + retain all their rights. -20. Intellectual Property + This document and the information contained herein are provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS + OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND + THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. + +Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement - this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- - ipr@ietf.org. - -21. Acknowledgement - - Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the - Internet Society. + this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at + ietf-ipr@ietf.org.