< draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-00.txt   draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-01.txt >
Internet Engineering Task Force R. Droms Internet Engineering Task Force R. Droms
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft Cisco
Updates: RFC 4291 (if approved) August 20, 2013 Updates: RFC 4291 (if approved) November 04, 2013
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: February 21, 2014 Expires: May 08, 2014
IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes
draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-00.txt draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes. This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 21, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 08, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Definition of IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes 1. Definition of IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes (Updates RFC 4291)
RFC 4291 [RFC4291] defines "scop is a 4-bit multicast scope value RFC 4291 [RFC4291] defines "scop is a 4-bit multicast scope value
used to limit the scope of the multicast group." scop 3 is defined as used to limit the scope of the multicast group." scop 3 is defined as
"reserved" in RFC 4291. The multicast protocol specification in "reserved" in RFC 4291. The multicast protocol specification in
draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] desires draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] desires
to use multicast scop 3 for transport of multicast traffic scoped to to use multicast scop 3 for transport of multicast traffic scoped to
a RPL realm (or "domain") [RFC6550]. The use of this scop value is a network of nodes connected in a mesh. The use of this scop value
to accommodate a multicast scope that is greater than Link-Local but is to accommodate a multicast scope that is greater than Link-Local
is also automatically determined by the network architecture; for but is also automatically determined by the network architecture; for
example, all of the hosts and routers in a multi-link subnet RPL example, all of the hosts and routers in a multi-link subnet RPL
realm. realm.
The following table updates the definitions in RFC 4291: The following table updates the definitions in RFC 4291:
0 reserved 0 reserved
1 Interface-Local scope 1 Interface-Local scope
2 Link-Local scope 2 Link-Local scope
skipping to change at page 2, line 49 skipping to change at page 2, line 49
B (unassigned) B (unassigned)
C (unassigned) C (unassigned)
D (unassigned) D (unassigned)
E Global scope E Global scope
F reserved F reserved
The following paragraph is added as the third paragraph following the The following change is applied to section 2.7 of RFC 4291:
list of scop values in RFC 4291:
Realm-Local scope is the largest scope that is automatically OLD:
configured, i.e., automatically derived from physical
connectivity or other, non-multicast-related configuration. Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be
According to <xref target="RFC4007">RFC&nbsp;4007</xref>, the administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived
zone of a Realm-Local scope must fall within zones of larger from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
scope. Because the zone of a Realm-Local scope is configured configuration.
automatically, while the zones of larger scopes are configured
manually, care must be taken in the definition of those larger NEW:
scopes to ensure that inclusion contraint is met.
Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope
boundaries are automatically derived from physical
connectivity or other, non-multicast related configuration.
Global scope has no boundary. The boundaries of all other
non-reserved scopes of Admin-Local or larger are
administratively configured. For reserved scopes, the way
of configuring their boundaries will be defined when the
semantics of the scope is defined.
According to RFC 4007 [RFC4007], the zone of a Realm-Local
scope must fall within zones of larger scope. Because the
zone of a Realm-Local scope is configured automatically,
while the zones of larger scopes are configured manually,
care must be taken in the definition of those larger scopes
to ensure that inclusion contraint is met.
2. Definition of Realm-Local scopes 2. Definition of Realm-Local scopes
The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network
technology should be published in an RFC. For example, such a scope technology should be published in an RFC. For example, such a scope
definition would be appropriate for publication in an "IPv6-over-foo" definition would be appropriate for publication in an "IPv6-over-foo"
RFC. RFC.
Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will be Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will be
listed in the IANA "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" registry. listed in the IANA "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" registry.
3. IANA Considerations 3. Definition of automatic and administratively configures scopes
(updates RFC 4007)
Section 5 of RFC 4007 [RFC4007] and section 2.7 of RFC 4291 disagree
about the way in which multicast scope 3 is configured. To resolve
that disagreement, change the last bullet in the list in section 5 of
RFC 4007 as follows:
OLD:
o The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local,
link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network
administrators.
NEW:
o The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6
addressing architecture [RFC4291].
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to establish a sub-registry titled "IPv6 Multicast IANA is asked to establish a sub-registry titled "IPv6 Multicast
Address Scopes" in the existing "Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Address Scopes" in the existing "Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Multicast Address Allocations" registry. The "IPv6 Multicast Address Multicast Address Allocations" registry. The "IPv6 Multicast Address
Scopes" is to be populated with the scope values given in section 1, Scopes" is to be populated with the scope values given in section 1,
with a note associated with scope 3 listing all RFCs that define with a note associated with scope 3 listing all RFCs that define
Realm-Local scoping rules that use scope 3. Realm-Local scoping rules that use scope 3.
4. Security Considerations 5. Acknowledgments
Robert Cragie, Kerry Lynn, Jinmei Tatuya, Dave Thaler and Stig Venaas
all contributed to enuring that the updates to RFC 4007 and RFC 4291
are correct
6. Security Considerations
This document has no security considerations beyond those in RFC 4291 This document has no security considerations beyond those in RFC 4291
[RFC4291]. [RFC4291].
5. References 7. References
5.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and [RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and
B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007, B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007,
March 2005. March 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
5.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast]
Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low power Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low power
and Lossy Networks (MPL)", draft-ietf-roll-trickle- and Lossy Networks (MPL)", draft-ietf-roll-trickle-
mcast-04 (work in progress), February 2013. mcast-05 (work in progress), August 2013.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Thubert, P., Brandt, A., Hui, J., Kelsey, R.,
Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur, JP., and R.
Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 6550, March 2012.
Author's Address Author's Address
Ralph Droms Ralph Droms
Cisco Cisco
1414 Massachusetts Avenue 1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719 Boxborough, MA 01719
US US
Phone: +1 978 936 1674 Phone: +1 978 936 1674
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
30 lines changed or deleted 64 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/