idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-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 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 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 separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC2770], [RFC2365], [IANA]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC2770, but the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this. 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 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: 'RFC277' is mentioned on line 70, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC1797' is defined on line 126, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2374' is defined on line 136, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 1797 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2374 (Obsoleted by RFC 3587) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2770 (Obsoleted by RFC 3180) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 2909 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3138 (Obsoleted by RFC 5771) -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'SAP' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SS' Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 MBONED Working Group David Meyer 3 Internet Draft Sprint E|Solutions 4 Peter Lothberg 5 Sprint E|Solutions 6 Category Best Current Practice 7 draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-00.txt August, 2001 9 GLOP Addressing in 233/8 11 1. Status of this Memo 13 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 14 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 19 Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 2. Abstract 34 This describes a policy for use of the class D address space using 35 233/8 as the statically assigned subset of the class D address space. 36 This space is generally to be utilized for many to many applications, 37 such as non-broadcast applications. This allocation is in addition 38 to those described on [IANA] (e.g. [RFC2365]). The IANA has allocated 39 223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC2770]. This document updates RFC 2770. 41 This memo is a product of the Multicast Deployment Working Group 42 (MBONED) in the Operations and Management Area of the Internet 43 Engineering Task Force. Submit comments to or 44 the author. 46 3. Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 50 4. Problem Statement 52 Multicast addresses have traditionally been allocated by a dynamic 53 mechanism such as SDR [SAP]. However, many current multicast 54 deployment models are not amenable to dynamic allocation. For 55 example, many content aggregators require group addresses which are 56 fixed on a time scale which is not amenable to allocation by a 57 mechanism such as described in [SAP]. Perhaps more seriously, since 58 there isn't general consensus by providers, content aggregators, or 59 application writers as to the allocation mechanism, the Internet is 60 left without a coherent multicast address allocation scheme. 62 The MALLOC working group has created a specific strategy for global 63 multicast address allocation [RFC2730, RFC2909]. However, this 64 approach has not been widely implemented or deployed. This document 65 proposes a solution for a subset of the problem, namely, those cases 66 not covered by Source Specific Multicast [SS]. 68 5. Address Space 70 The IANA has allocated 223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC277]. RFC 2770 71 describes the administration of middle two octetes of 233/8 in a 72 manner similar to that described in RFC1797: 74 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 75 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 76 | 233 | 16 bits AS | local bits | 77 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 79 5.1. Example 81 Consider, for example, AS 5662. Written in binary, left padded with 82 0s, we get 0001011000011110. Mapping the high order octet to the 83 second octet of the address, and the low order octet to the third 84 octet, we get 233.22.30/24. 86 6. Allocation 88 As mentioned above, the allocation proposed here follows the RFC1797 89 (case 1) allocation scheme, modified as follows: the high order octet 90 has the value 233, and the next 16 bits are a previously assigned 91 Autonomous System number (AS), as registered by a network registry 92 and listed in the RWhois database system. This allows a single /24 93 per AS. 95 As was the case with RFC1797, using the AS number in this way allows 96 automatic assignment of a single /24 to each service provider and 97 does not require a registration step. 99 6.1. Private AS Space 101 The address space mapped to the private AS space [RFC1930] is 102 assigned to the IRRs to assign as per their local policy [RFC3138]. 104 7. Security Considerations 106 The approach described here may have the effect of reduced exposure 107 to denial of space attacks based on dynamic allocation. Further, 108 since dynamic assignment does not cross domain boundaries, well known 109 intra-domain security techniques can be applied. 111 8. IANA Considerations 113 The IANA should assign 233/8 for this purpose. 115 9. Acknowledgments 117 This idea originated with Peter Lothberg's idea that we use the same 118 allocation (AS based) as described in RFC 1797 in the class D address 119 space. Randy Bush and Mark Handley contributed many insightful 120 comments. 122 10. References 124 [IANA] http://www.iana.org/numbers.html 126 [RFC1797] IANA, "Class A Subnet Experiment", RFC 1797, 127 April, 1995. 129 [RFC1930] J. Hawkinson, et. al., "Guidelines for creation, 130 selection, and registration of an Autonomous 131 System (AS)", RFC1930, March, 1996. 133 [RFC2365] David Meyer, "Administratively Scoped IP 134 Multicast", July, 1998. 136 [RFC2374] R. Hinden, et. al., "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global 137 Unicast Address Format", July, 1998. 139 [RFC2730] B. Patel, et. al., "Multicast Address Dynamic 140 Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC2730, 141 December, 1999. 143 [RFC2770] D. Meyer and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 144 233/8", RFC 2770, Feburary, 2000. 146 [RFC2909] D. Estrin, et. al., "The Multicast Address-Set 147 Claim (MASC) Protocol", RFC2909, September 2000. 149 [RFC3138] D. Meyer "Extended Assignmentns in 233/8", RFC 150 3138, June 2001. 152 [SAP] Handley, Mark, "SAP: Session Announcement 153 Protocol", draft-ietf-mmusic-sap-00.txt, November, 154 1996. 156 [SS] www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/single-source- 157 multicast 159 11. Author's Address 161 David Meyer 162 Sprint 163 VARESA0104 164 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive 165 Reston VA, 20196 166 Email: dmm@sprint.net 168 Peter Lothberg 169 Sprint 170 VARESA0104 171 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive 172 Reston VA, 20196 173 Email: roll@sprint.net 175 12. Full Copyright Statement 177 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 179 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 180 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 181 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 182 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 183 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 184 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 185 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 186 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 187 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 188 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 189 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 190 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 191 English. 193 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 194 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 196 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 197 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 198 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 199 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 200 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 201 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.