idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-01.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 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 6 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: 'RFC2026' is defined on line 114, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2780' is defined on line 127, 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-02 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'SSM' == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-mboned-iana-ipv4-mcast-guidelines-00 Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 4 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 April, 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 - 76 233.255.255.255) 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 Globally scoped IPv4 multicast addresses in the EGLOP space are 83 allocated by a Regional Registry (RIR). An applicant MUST, as per 84 [IANA], show that the request cannot be satisfied using 85 Administratively Scoped addressing [RFC2365], GLOP addressing 86 [RFC2770], or SSM [SSM]. The fine-grained allocation policy is left 87 to the allocating RIR. 89 7. Security Considerations 91 Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 93 8. Acknowledgments 95 Mirjam Kuehne and Randy Bush provided many insightful comments on 96 earlier versions of this document. 98 9. Author's Address: 100 David Meyer 101 Cisco Systems, Inc. 102 170 Tasman Drive 103 San Jose, CA, 95134 104 Email: dmm@cisco.com 106 10. References 108 [IANA] http://www.iana.org 110 [RFC1930] J. Hawkinson and T. Bates, "Guidelines for 111 creation, selection, and registration of an 112 Autonomous System (AS)", RFC 1930, March 1996. 114 [RFC2026] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- 115 Revision 3", RFC2026, October 1996. 117 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to 118 Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 119 1997. 121 [RFC2365] D. Meyer,"Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC 122 2365, July, 1998. 124 [RFC2770] D. Meyer, and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", 125 RFC 2770, February, 2000 127 [RFC2780] S. Bradner and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines 128 For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related 129 Headers", RFC2780, March, 2000 131 [SSM] Holbrook, H., and Cain, B., "Source-Specific Multicast 132 for IP", draft-holbrook-ssm-arch-02.txt, Work in 133 progress. 135 [GUIDELINES] Albanna, Z., et. al, "IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast 136 Address Allocation", 137 draft-ietf-mboned-iana-ipv4-mcast-guidelines-00.txt, 138 Work in progress. 140 11. Full Copyright Statement 142 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 144 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 145 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 146 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 147 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 148 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 149 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 150 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 151 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 152 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 153 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 154 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 155 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 156 English. 158 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 159 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 161 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 162 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 163 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARIRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 164 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARIRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 165 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARIRANTIES OF 166 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.