idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ipv6-link-scoped-mcast-09.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 18. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 282. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 258. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 265. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 271. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 7 longer pages, the longest (page 1) being 62 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) == There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3306, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC3306 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC3306, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2000-09-27) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (July 17, 2005) is 6820 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC 2461' is defined on line 202, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC 3956' is defined on line 221, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'SSM ARCH' is defined on line 224, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2461 (Obsoleted by RFC 4861) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3041 (Obsoleted by RFC 4941) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3513 (Obsoleted by RFC 4291) Summary: 8 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IPv6 Working Group J-S. Park 3 INTERNET DRAFT ETRI 4 Expires: January 18, 2006 M-K. Shin 5 Updates: 3306 ETRI 6 H-J. Kim 7 ETRI 8 July 17, 2005 10 A Method for Generating Link Scoped IPv6 Multicast Addresses 11 13 Status of this Memo 15 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 16 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 17 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 18 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 22 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 23 Drafts. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 26 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other docu- 27 ments at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 28 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in pro- 29 gress." 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 18, 2006. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 43 Abstract 45 This document specifies an extension to the multicast addressing 46 architecture of the IPv6 protocol. The extension allows for the use 47 of Interface Identifiers (IIDs) to allocate multicast addresses. 48 When a link-local unicast address is configured at each interface 49 of a node, an IID is uniquely determined. After that, each node 50 can generate their unique multicast addresses automatically without 51 conflicts. Basically, this document proposes an alternative method 52 for creating link-local multicast addresses over a known method 53 like unicast-prefix-based IPv6 multicast addresses. It is preferred 54 to use this method for link-local scope rather than unicast- 55 prefix-based IPv6 multicast addresses. This memo update RFC3306. 57 Table of Contents: 59 1. Introduction................................................2 60 2. Applicability...............................................2 61 3. Link Scoped Multicast Address Format........................3 62 4. Example ....................................................4 63 5. Consideration of Lifetime ..................................4 64 6. Security Considerations.....................................4 65 7. Acknowledgments.............................................4 66 8. References..................................................5 67 Author's Addresses.............................................5 69 1. Introduction 71 This document defines an extension to the multicast portion of the 72 IPv6 addressing architecture [RFC 3513]. The current architecture 73 does not contain any built-in support for dynamic address 74 allocation. The extension allows for use of IIDs to allocate 75 multicast addresses. When a link-local unicast address is 76 configured at each interface of a node, an IID is uniquely 77 determined. After that, each node can generate their unique 78 multicast addresses automatically without conflicts. That is, 79 these addresses could safely be configured at any time after DAD 80 (Duplicate Address Detection) has completed. 82 Basically, it is preferred to use this method for the link-local 83 scope rather than unicast-prefix-based IPv6 multicast addresses 84 [RFC 3306], since by delegating multicast addresses using the IID, 85 each node can generate its multicast addresses automatically 86 without allocation servers. This method goes well with 87 applications in serverless environment such as ad-hoc and network 88 mobility rather thant unicast-prefix-based method. This document 89 restricts the usage of defined fields such as scop, plen and 90 network prefix fields of [RFC 3306]. Therefore, this document 91 specifies encoded information for link-local scope in multicast 92 addresses. 94 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 95 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in 96 this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119]. 98 2. Applicability 99 The allocation technique in this document is designed to be used in 100 any environment in which link-local scope IPv6 multicast addresses 101 are assigned or selected. Especially, this method goes well with 102 nodes supplying multicast services in a zeroconf/serverless 103 environment. For example, multicast addresses less than or equal 104 to link-local scope are themselves generated by nodes supplying 105 multicast services without conflicts. Also, hosts which are 106 supplied multicast services from multicast servers then make 107 multicast addresses of multicast servers using ND (address 108 resolution) and well-known group IDs. 110 Consequently, this technique MUST only be used for link scoped 111 multicast addresses. If you want to use multicast addresses 112 greater than link-local scope, you need to use other methods as 113 described in [RFC 3306]. 115 3. Link Scoped Multicast Address Format 117 This document specifies a new format that incorporates IID in the 118 link-local scope multicast addresses. 120 Figure 1 illustrates the new format for link scoped multicast 121 addresses. 123 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 64 | 32 | 124 +--------+----+----+--------+--------+----------------+----------+ 125 |11111111|flgs|scop|reserved| plen | IID | group ID | 126 +--------+----+----+--------+--------+----------------+----------+ 128 Figure 1: Link scoped multicast IPv6 address format 130 Flgs, scop, and plen fields are used to identify whether an address 131 is a multicast address as specified in this document as follows: 132 1. flgs MUST be "0011". 133 2. scop MUST be <= 2. 134 3. The reserved field MUST be zero. 135 4. "plen" field is a special value "1111 1111" (decimal 255). 137 The IID field (replacing the 64-bit prefix field from [RFC 3306]) 138 is used to distinguish each node from others. Given the use of 139 this method for link-local scope, the IID embedded in the multicast 140 address MUST only come from the IID of the link-local unicast 141 address on the interface after DAD has completed. That is, the 142 creation of the multicast address MUST only occur after DAD has 143 completed as part of the auto-configuration process. 145 Group ID is generated to indicate a multicast application and is 146 used to guarantee its uniqueness only in the host. It may also be 147 set on the basis of the guidelines outlined in [RFC 3307]. 149 4. Example 151 This is an example of link scoped IPv6 multicast addresses. For 152 example in an ethernet environment, if the link-local unicast 153 address is FE80::A12:34FF:FE56:7890, the link scoped multicast 154 prefix of the node is FF32:00FF:A12:34FF:FE56:7890::/96. 156 5. Consideration of Lifetime 158 Generally, Link scoped multicast addresses have no lifetime because 159 link-local unicast addresses also have no lifetime. But, it is not 160 true in environment of mobile. Even though multicast addresses are 161 created from the unique IID of unicast address, their useful 162 lifetime is linked to the period during which the IID is known to 163 be unique. Thus, it is possible to conflict between IIDs, due to a 164 new node in merged network that uses the same IID as a powered 165 node. 167 This is a scenario where DAD also fails to guarantee the uniqueness 168 of the unicast address, so this document does not try to address 169 this issue. 171 6. Security Considerations 173 The uniqueness of multicast addresses using this method is 174 guaranteed by the DAD process. So, it is needed to get a secure 175 DAD process for stability of this method. This document proposes 176 the mechanism in [RFC 3041] for this purpose. 178 [RFC 3041] describes the privacy extension to IPv6 stateless 179 address autoconfiguration to how to configure the IID of non-link- 180 local scope unicast addresses. [RFC 3041] can not be used for 181 making a link-local unicast address, and hence it cannot be used to 182 create an IID for link-scoped multicast address. However, as [RFC 183 3041] does not protect the privacy of link-local unicast addresses, 184 it does not protect the privacy of link-local unicast addresses, it 185 does not seem to be required to protect the privacy of IID-based 186 link-local multicast addresses. 188 7. Acknowledgements 190 We would like to thank Dave Thaler and Brian Haberman for his 191 comments related to the consistency between the unicast prefix- 192 based multicast draft and this one. Special thanks are due to Erik 193 Nordmark and Pekka Savola for valuable comments. 195 8. References 197 Normative 199 [RFC 2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate 200 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 202 [RFC 2461] T. Narten, E. Nordmark and W. Simpson, "Neighbor 203 Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, 204 December 1998. 206 [RFC 3041] T. Narten and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for 207 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6," 208 RFC 3041, April 2001. 210 [RFC 3306] B. Haberman and D. Thaler, "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6 211 Multicast Addresses," RFC 3306, August 2002. 213 [RFC 3307] B. Haberman, "Allocation Guidelines for IPv6 Multicast 214 Addresses," RFC 3307, August 2002. 216 [RFC 3513] R. Hinden and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 217 Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. 219 Informative 221 [RFC 3956] P. Savola and B. Haberman, "Embedding the Rendezvous 222 Point (RP) Address in an IPv6 Multicast Address 224 [SSM ARCH] H. Holbrook and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast 225 for IP", Work In Progress, September 2004. 227 Authors' Addresses 229 Jung-Soo Park 230 ETRI PEC 231 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 305-350, Korea 232 Phone: +82 42 860 6514 233 Email: jspark@pec.etri.re.kr 235 Myung-Ki Shin 236 ETRI/NIST 237 820 West Diamond Avenue 238 Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA 239 Tel : +1 301 975-3613 240 Fax : +1 301 590-0932 241 E-mail : mshin@nist.gov 243 Hyoung-Jun Kim 244 ETRI PEC 245 161 Gajeong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 305-350, Korea 246 Phone: +82 42 860 6576 247 Email: khj@etri.re.kr 249 Intellectual Property Statement 251 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 252 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed 253 to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described 254 in this document or the extent to which any license under such 255 rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that 256 it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. 257 Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC 258 documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 260 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 261 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 262 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use 263 of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 264 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository 265 at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 267 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 268 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 269 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 270 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 271 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 273 Disclaimer of Validity 275 This document and the information contained herein are provided on 276 an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 277 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND 278 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, 279 EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT 280 THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR 281 ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A 282 PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 284 Copyright Statement 286 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is 287 subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 288 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their 289 rights. 291 Acknowledgment 293 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 294 Internet Society.