Network Working Group D. Thaler
Internet-Draft Microsoft
Expires: August 28, 2008 February 25, 2008
Unicast-Prefix-based IPv4 Multicast Addresses
draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-05.txt
Status of this Memo
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.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This specification defines an extension to the multicast addressing
architecture of the IP Version 4 protocol. The extension presented
in this document allows for unicast-prefix-based assignment of
multicast addresses. By delegating multicast addresses at the same
time as unicast prefixes, network operators will be able to identify
their multicast addresses without needing to run an inter-domain
allocation protocol.
Thaler Expires August 28, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Uni-Prefix-based IPv4 Multicast February 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Address Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7
Thaler Expires August 28, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Uni-Prefix-based IPv4 Multicast February 2008
1. Introduction
RFC 3180 [RFC3180] defined an experimental allocation mechanism
(called "GLOP") in 233/8 whereby an Autonomous System (AS) number is
embedded in the middle 16 bits of an IPv4 multicast address,
resulting in 256 multicast addresses per AS. Advantages of this
mechanism include the ability to get multicast address space without
an inter-domain multicast address allocation protocol, and the ease
of determining the AS that was assigned the address for debugging and
auditing purposes.
Some disadvantages of GLOP include:
o RFC 4893 [RFC4893] expands the size of an AS number to 4 bytes,
and GLOP cannot work with 4-byte AS numbers.
o When an AS covers multiple sites or organizations, administration
of the multicast address space within an AS must be handled by
other mechanisms, such as manual administrative effort or MADCAP
[RFC2730].
o During debugging, identifying the AS does not immediately identify
the correct organization when an AS covers multiple organizations.
o Only 256 addresses are automatically available per AS, and
obtaining any more requires administrative effort.
More recently, a mechanism [RFC3306] has been developed for IPv6 that
provides a multicast range to every IPv6 subnet, which is at a much
finer granularity than an AS. As a result, the first three
disadvantages above are avoided (and the last disadvantage does not
apply to IPv6 due to the extended size of the address space).
Another advantage of providing multicast space to a subnet, rather
than just to an entire AS, is that multicast address assignment
within the range need only be coordinated within the subnet.
This draft specifies a mechanism similar to [RFC3306], whereby a
range of global IPv4 multicast address space is provided to each
organization that has unicast address space. A resulting advantage
over GLOP is that the mechanisms in IPv4 and IPv6 become more
similar.
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 [RFC2119].
Thaler Expires August 28, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Uni-Prefix-based IPv4 Multicast February 2008
3. Address Space
(RFC-editor: replace TBD in this section and the next with IANA-
assigned value, and delete this note.)
A multicast address with the prefix TBD/8 indicates that the address
is a Unicast-Based Multicast (UBM) address. The remaining 24 bits
are used as follows:
Bits: | 8 | Unicast Prefix Length | 24 - Unicast Prefix Length |
+-----+-----------------------+----------------------------+
Value: | TBD | Unicast Prefix | Group ID |
+-----+-----------------------+----------------------------+
For organizations with a /24 or shorter prefix, the unicast prefix of
the organization is appended to the common /8. Any remaining bits
may be assigned by any mechanism the organization wishes.
For example, an organization that has a /16 prefix assigned might
choose to assign multicast addresses manually from the /24 multicast
prefix derived from the above method. Alternatively, the
organization might choose to delegate the use of multicast addresses
to individual subnets that have a /24 or shorter unicast prefix, or
it might choose some other method.
Organizations with a prefix length longer than 24 do not receive any
multicast address space from this mechanism; in such cases, another
mechanism must be used.
Compared to GLOP, an AS will receive more address space via this
mechanism if it has more than a /16 for unicast space. An AS will
receive less address space than it does from GLOP if it has less than
a /16.
The organization that is assigned the UBM address can be determined
by taking the multicast address, shifting it left by 8 bits, and
identifying who has been assigned the address space covering the
resulting unicast address.
The embedded unicast prefix MUST be a global unicast prefix (i.e., no
loopback, multicast, link-local, or private-use IP address space).
In addition, since global unicast addresses are not permanently
assigned, UBM addresses MUST NOT be hard-coded in applications.
4. Examples
The following are a few examples of the structure of unicast-prefix
Thaler Expires August 28, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Uni-Prefix-based IPv4 Multicast February 2008
based multicast addresses.
o Consider an organization that has been assigned the global unicast
address space 192.0.2.0/24. This means that organization can use
the global multicast address TBD.192.0.2 without coordinating with
any other entity. Someone who sees this multicast address and
wants to find who is using it can mentally shift the address left
by 8 bits to get 192.0.2.0, and then look up who has been assigned
unicast address space that includes that address.
o Consider an organization has been assigned a larger address space,
x.y.0.0/16. This organization can use the global multicast
address space TBD.x.y.0/24 without coordinating with any other
entity, and can assign addresses within this space by any
mechanism the organization wishes. Someone who sees a multicast
address (say) TBD.x.y.10, and wants to find who is using it can
mentally shift the address left by 8 bits to get x.y.10.0, and can
then look up who has been assigned unicast address space that
includes that address.
5. Security Considerations
The same well known intra-domain security techniques can be applied
as with GLOP. Furthermore, when dynamic allocation is used within a
prefix, the approach described here may have the effect of reduced
exposure to denial of space attacks, since the topological area
within which nodes compete for addresses within the same prefix is
reduced from an entire AS to only within an individual organization
or an even smaller area.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA should assign a /8 in the global IPv4 multicast address space
for this purpose.
7. Acknowledgments
This document was updated based on feedback from the MBoneD working
group. In particular, Tim Chown, Toerless Eckert, Prashant Jhingran,
Peter Koch, John Linn, Dave Meyer, Pekka Savola, Greg Shepherd, and
Stig Venaas provided valuable suggestions on the text.
8. References
Thaler Expires August 28, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Uni-Prefix-based IPv4 Multicast February 2008
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2730] Hanna, S., Patel, B., and M. Shah, "Multicast Address
Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC 2730,
December 1999.
[RFC3180] Meyer, D. and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8",
BCP 53, RFC 3180, September 2001.
[RFC3306] Haberman, B. and D. Thaler, "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6
Multicast Addresses", RFC 3306, August 2002.
[RFC4893] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-octet AS
Number Space", RFC 4893, May 2007.
Author's Address
Dave Thaler
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
Phone: +1 425 703 8835
Email: dthaler@microsoft.com
Thaler Expires August 28, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Uni-Prefix-based IPv4 Multicast February 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Thaler Expires August 28, 2008 [Page 7]
