idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-00.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 4 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 60 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 5 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** 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.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 11 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC2770], [RFC1930]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- 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.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC2434' is mentioned on line 68, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) == Unused Reference: 'IANA' is defined on line 124, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2026' is defined on line 130, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2780' is defined on line 143, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2770 (Obsoleted by RFC 3180) == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-holbrook-ssm-arch-01 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'SSM' -- No information found for draft-albanna-iana-IPv4-mcast-guidelines - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'GUIDELINES' Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group David Meyer 2 INTERNET DRAFT Cisco Systems 3 Category Best Current Practices 4 March, 2001 6 Extended Allocations in 233/8 7 9 1. Status of this Memo 11 This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the 12 Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for 13 improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 15 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 16 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. 18 Internet Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 20 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 2. Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 37 3. Abstract 39 This memo provides describes the mapping of the GLOP addresses 40 [RFC2770] corresponding to the private AS space [RFC1930]. 42 4. Introduction 44 RFC 2770 [RFC2770] describes an experimental policy for use of the 45 class D address space using 233/8. The technique described there maps 46 16 bits of Autonomous System number (AS) into the middle two octets 47 of 233/8 to yield a /24. While this technique has been successful, 48 the assignments are inefficient in those cases in which a /24 is too 49 small or the user doesn't have its own AS. 51 RFC 1930 [RFC1930] defines the private AS space to be 64512 through 52 65535. This memo expands on RFC 2770 to allow routing registries to 53 allocate multicast addresses from the GLOP space corresponding to the 54 RFC 1930 private ASes. This space will be refered to as the EGLOP 55 (Extended GLOP) address space. 57 This memo is a product of the Multicast Deployment Working Group 58 (MBONED) in the Operations and Management Area of the Internet 59 Engineering Task Force. Submit comments to or 60 the authors. 62 The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval", 63 "IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to 64 refer to the processes described in [RFC2434]. The keywords MUST, 65 MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, 66 SHOULD, SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined in RFC 2119 67 [RFC2119]. 69 5. Overview 71 http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/multicast.pl defines a mechanism for 72 allocation of multicast addresses that are generally for use in 73 network control applications (a more general description of these 74 policies can be found in [GUIDELINES]). It is envisioned that those 75 addresses allocated from the EGLOP space (233.242.0.0/24 - 76 233.255.255.0/24) will be used by applications that cannot use 77 Administratively Scoped Addressing [RFC2365], GLOP Addressing 78 [RFC2770], or Source Specific Multicast (SSM) [SSM]. 80 6. Assignment Criteria 82 An application for a globally scoped IPv4 multicast addresses issued 83 by a Regional Registry (RIR). The applicant MUST 85 (i). Show that the request cannot be satisfied using 86 Administratively Scoped addressing, GLOP addressing, 87 or SSM. 89 (ii). Request IP address space from upstream provider 91 (iii). Request IP address space from provider's provider 93 If the request cannot be satisfied by (i)-(iii) above, the RIR MAY 94 consider allocation from the range 233.242.0.0 - 233.255.255.0. 96 Address space allocation size is the responsibility of the allocating 97 RIR. The blocks MUST BE be issued on appropriate CIDR boundaries. 98 Prefixes shorter than /21 should not be allocated. 100 Because the number of available IPv4 multicast addresses on the 101 Internet is extremely limited, many factors must be considered in the 102 determination of address space allocations. Therefore, multicast 103 address space MUST be allocated using a slow-start model. Allocations 104 SHOULD be based on justified need, not solely on a predicted customer 105 base. In particular, delayed deployment of a given technology (e.g. 106 SSM) is not a basis for assignment of addresses from the EGLOP space. 108 7. Security Considerations 110 Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 112 8. Acknowledgments 114 9. Author's Address: 116 David Meyer 117 Cisco Systems, Inc. 118 170 Tasman Drive 119 San Jose, CA, 95134 120 Email: dmm@cisco.com 122 10. References 124 [IANA] http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/multicast-addresses 126 [RFC1930] J. Hawkinson and T. Bates, "Guidelines for 127 creation, selection, and registration of an 128 Autonomous System (AS)", RFC 1930, March 1996. 130 [RFC2026] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- 131 Revision 3", RFC2026, October 1996. 133 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to 134 Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 135 1997. 137 [RFC2365] D. Meyer,"Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC 138 2365, July, 1998. 140 [RFC2770] D. Meyer, and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", 141 RFC 2770, February, 2000 143 [RFC2780] S. Bradner and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines 144 For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related 145 Headers", RFC2780, March, 2000 147 [SSM] Holbrook, H., and Cain, B., "Source-Specific Multicast 148 for IP", draft-holbrook-ssm-arch-01.txt, Work in 149 progress. 151 [GUIDELINES] IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address 152 Allocation, draft-albanna-iana-IPv4-mcast-guidelines-00.txt, 153 Work in progress. 155 11. Full Copyright Statement 157 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 159 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 160 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 161 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 162 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 163 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 164 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 165 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 166 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 167 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 168 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 169 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 170 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 171 English. 173 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 174 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 176 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 177 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 178 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARIRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 179 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARIRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 180 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARIRANTIES OF 181 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.