MBONED Working Group David Meyer
Internet Draft Sprint E|Solutions
Peter Lothberg
Sprint E|Solutions
Category Best Current Practice
draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-00.txt August, 2001
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 policy for use of the class D address space using
233/8 as the statically assigned subset of the class D address space.
This space is generally to be utilized for many to many applications,
such as non-broadcast 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.
David Meyer [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-00.txt August, 2001
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]. However, many current multicast
deployment models are not amenable to dynamic allocation. For
example, many content aggregators require group addresses which are
fixed on a time scale which is not amenable to allocation by a
mechanism such as described in [SAP]. Perhaps more seriously, since
there isn't 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]. RFC 2770
describes the administration of middle two octetes 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.
David Meyer [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-00.txt August, 2001
6. Allocation
As mentioned above, the allocation proposed here follows the RFC1797
(case 1) allocation scheme, modified as follows: the 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 registration step.
6.1. Private AS Space
The address space mapped to the private AS space [RFC1930] is
assigned to the IRRs to assign as per their local policy [RFC3138].
7. Security Considerations
The approach described here may have the effect of reduced exposure
to denial of space attacks based on dynamic allocation. Further,
since dynamic assignment does not cross domain boundaries, well known
intra-domain security techniques can be applied.
8. IANA Considerations
The IANA should assign 233/8 for this purpose.
9. Acknowledgments
This idea 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. Randy Bush and Mark Handley contributed many insightful
comments.
David Meyer [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-00.txt August, 2001
10. 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, March, 1996.
[RFC2365] David Meyer, "Administratively Scoped IP
Multicast", July, 1998.
[RFC2374] R. Hinden, et. al., "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global
Unicast Address Format", July, 1998.
[RFC2730] B. Patel, et. al., "Multicast Address Dynamic
Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC2730,
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, September 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
David Meyer [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-00.txt July, 2001
11. 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. 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.
David Meyer [Page 5]
