Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting
RFC 1768

 
Document Type RFC - Experimental (March 1995; No errata)
Last updated 2013-03-02
Stream IETF
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state RFC 1768 (Experimental)
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          D. Marlow
Request for Comments: 1768                                       NSWC-DD
Category: Experimental                                        March 1995

              Host Group Extensions for CLNP Multicasting

Status of this Memo

   This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any
   kind.  Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

   This memo documents work performed in the TUBA (TCP/UDP over Bigger
   Addresses) working group of IPng area prior to the July 1994 decision
   to utilize SIPP-16 as the basis for IPng.  The TUBA group worked on
   extending the Internet Protocol suite by the use of ISO 8473 (CLNP)
   and its related routing protocols.  This memo describes multicast
   extensions to CLNP and its related routing protocols for Internet
   multicast use.  Publication of this memo does not imply acceptance by
   any IETF Working Group for the ideas expressed within.

   This memo provides a specification for multicast extensions to the
   CLNP protocol similar to those provided to IP by RFC1112.  These
   extensions are intended to provide the mechanisms needed by a host
   for multicasting in a CLNP based Internet.  This memo covers
   addressing extensions to the CLNP addressing structure, extensions to
   the CLNP protocol and extensions to the ES-IS protocol.  An appendix
   discusses the differences between IP multicast and the CLNP multicast
   approach provided in this memo.

Acknowledgments

   The specification provided here was developed by a number of
   individuals in the IETF TUBA working group as well as the ANSI X3S3.3
   and ISO SC6 WG2 committees.  Key contributions were made by Steve
   Deering, Joel Halpern, Dave Katz and Dave Oran.

Marlow                                                          [Page 1]
RFC 1768                   CLNP Multicasting                  March 1995

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction ..........................................  2
   2.  Levels of Conformance..................................  3
   3.  Group Network Addresses................................  4
   4.  Model of a CLNP End System Multicast Implementation....  8
   5.  Extensions to the CLNP Protocol........................  8
   6.  Extensions to the ES-IS Routeing Protocol ............. 15
   7.  Security Considerations ............................... 39
   Appendix A.  Differences with RFC 1112 .................... 40
   Appendix B.  Issues Under Study ........................... 43
   References ................................................ 44
   Author's Address .......................................... 45

1.      Introduction

   This memo provides a specification for multicast extensions for CLNP
   in order to provide a CLNP based Internet the capabilities provided
   for IP by RFC 1112 (Host Extensions for IP Multicasting) [RFC1112].
   This memo uses an outline similar to that of RFC 1112.

   Paraphrasing RFC 1112, "CLNP multicasting is the transmission of a
   CLNP datagram to a "host group", a set of zero or more End Systems
   identified by a single group Network address (GNA). A multicast
   datagram is delivered to all members of its destination host group
   with the same "best-efforts" reliability as regular unicast CLNP
   datagrams, i.e., the datagram is not guaranteed to arrive intact at
   all members of the destination group or in the same order relative to
   other datagrams.

   "The membership of a host group is dynamic; that is End Systems may
   join and leave groups at any time. There is no restrictions on the
   location or number of members in a host group. An End System may be a
   member of more than one group at a time. An End System need not be a
   member of a group to send datagrams to it.

   "A host group may be permanent or transient. A permanent group has an
   administratively assigned GNA. It is the address, not the membership
   of the group, that is permanent; at any time a permanent group may
   have any number of members, even zero.

   "Internetwork forwarding of CLNP multicast datagrams is handled by
   "multicast capable" Intermediate Systems which may be co-resident
   with unicast capable Intermediate Systems.

   The multicast extensions to the CLNP addressing structure defines
   group Network addresses which identify host groups.  The multicast
   extensions to CLNP provides a means for identifying a CLNP packet and

Marlow                                                          [Page 2]
RFC 1768                   CLNP Multicasting                  March 1995
Show full document text