idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mboned-iana-ipv4-mcast-guidelines-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 9 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 10 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 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 6 characters in excess of 72. 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) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1190 (Obsoleted by RFC 1819) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2030 (Obsoleted by RFC 4330) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2770 (Obsoleted by RFC 3180) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2908 (Obsoleted by RFC 6308) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental RFC: RFC 2974 -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'SDR' == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-holbrook-ssm-arch-01 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'SSM' Summary: 14 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Zaid Albanna 2 INTERNET DRAFT Worldcom 3 Kevin Almeroth 4 UCSB 5 David Meyer 6 Cisco Systems 7 Michelle Schipper 8 IANA 9 Category Best Current Practices 10 March, 2001 12 IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Allocation 13 15 1. Status of this Memo 17 This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the 18 Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for 19 improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 21 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 22 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. 24 Internet Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 26 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 36 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 37 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 39 2. Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 43 3. Abstract 45 This memo provides guidance for the IANA in assigning IPv4 multicast 46 addresses. 48 4. Introduction 50 The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (www.iana.org) is 51 charged with allocating parameter values for fields in protocols 52 which have been designed, created or are maintained by the Internet 53 Engineering Task Force (IETF). RFC 2780 [RFC2780] provides the IANA 54 guidance in the assignment of parameters for fields in newly 55 developed protocols. This memo expands on section 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 56 and attempts to codify existing IANA practice used in the assignment 57 IPv4 multicast addresses. 59 The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval", 60 "IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to 61 refer to the processes described in [RFC2434]. The keywords MUST, 62 MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, 63 SHOULD, SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined in RFC 2119 64 [RFC2119]. 66 In general, due to the relatively small size of the IPv4 multicast 67 addresses space, further allocation of IPv4 multicast address space 68 is not recommended. Specifically, the IANA should only assign 69 addresses in those cases where the dynamic selection (SDP/SAP), GLOP, 70 SSM or Administratively Scoped address spaces cannot be used. The 71 guidelines described below are reflected in http://www.iana.org. 73 5. Definition of Current Assignment Practice 75 Unlike IPv4 unicast address assignment, where blocks of addresses are 76 delegated to regional registries, IPv4 multicast addresses are 77 assigned directly by the IANA. Current allocations appear as follows 78 [IANA]: 80 224.0.0.0 - 224.0.0.255 (224.0.0/24) Local Network Control Block 81 224.0.1.0 - 224.0.1.255 (224.0.1/24) Internetwork Control Block 82 224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.0 AD-HOC Block 83 224.1.0.0 - 224.1.255.255 (224.1/16) ST Multicast Groups 84 224.2.0.0 - 224.2.255.255 (224.2/16) SDP/SAP Block 85 224.252.0.0 - 224.255.255.255 DIS Transient Block 86 225.0.0.0 - 225.255.255.255 (225/8) MALLOC Block 87 226.0.0.0 - 231.255.255.255 RESERVED 88 232.0.0.0 - 232.255.255.255 (232/8) Source Specific Multicast Block 89 233.0.0.0 - 233.255.255.255 (233/8) GLOP Block 90 234.0.0.0 - 238.255.255.255 RESERVED 91 239.0.0.0 - 239.255.255.255 (239/8) Administratively Scoped Block 93 The IANA generally allocates addresses from the Local Network 94 Control, Internetwork Control, and AD-HOC blocks. Allocation 95 guidelines for each of these blocks, as well as for the MALLOC, 96 Source Specific Multicast, GLOP and Administratively Scoped Blocks, 97 are described below. 99 Note that while some applications may informally use arbitrary parts 100 of the IPv4 multicast address space (e.g., 229/8), an application 101 MUST NOT use address space that is not allocated as described in this 102 memo. 104 6. Local Network Control Block (224.0.0/24) 106 Addresses in the Local Network Control block are used for protocol 107 control traffic that is not forwarded off link. Examples of this type 108 of use include OSPFIGP All Routers (224.0.0.5) [RFC2328]. 110 6.1. Allocation Guidelines 112 Allocation of addresses in the Local Network Configuration Block 113 SHOULD BE be accompanied by a specification ("Specification 114 Required"). This specification will typically take the form of an 115 internet draft or RFC. 117 7. Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1/24) 119 Addresses in the Internetwork Control block are used for protocol 120 control that must be forwarded through the Internet. Examples include 121 224.0.1.1 (NTP [RFC2030]) and 224.0.1.68 (mdhcpdisover [RFC2730]). 123 7.1. Allocation Guidelines 125 Allocation of addresses in the Internetwork Control block SHOULD BE 126 accompanied by a specification ("Specification Required"). This 127 specification will typically take the form of an internet draft or 128 RFC. 130 8. AD-HOC Block (224.0.2.0/24 - 224.0.255.0/24) 132 Addresses in the AD-HOC block have traditionally been allocated for 133 those applications that don't fit in either the Local or Internetwork 134 Control blocks. These addresses are globally routed and are typically 135 used by applications that require small blocks of addressing (e.g., 136 less than a /24). 138 8.1. Allocation Guidelines 140 Allocation of addresses in the AD-HOC Block SHOULD BE accompanied by 141 a specification ("Specification Required").This specification will 142 typically take the form of an internet draft or RFC. In general, the 143 IANA SHOULD NOT assign addressing in the AD-HOC Block. 145 9. SDP/SAP Block (224.2/16) 147 Addresses in the SDP/SAP block are used by applications that receive 148 addresses through the Session Announcement Protocol [RFC2974] for use 149 via applications like the session directory tool (such as SDR [SDR]). 151 9.1. Allocation Guidelines 153 Since addresses in the SDP/SAP block are chosen randomly from the 154 range of addresses not already in use [RFC2974], no IANA allocation 155 policy is required. Note that while no additional IANA allocation is 156 required, addresses in the SDP/SAP block are explicitly for use by 157 SDP/SAP and MUST NOT be used for other purposes. 159 10. MALLOC Block (225/8) 161 Addresses in the MALLOC block are dynamically allocated by the MALLOC 162 suite of protocols [RFC2908]. This assignment is temporary and MUST 163 BE reviewed annually. 165 10.1. Allocation Guidelines 167 Since addresses in the MALLOC block are chosen by elements of the 168 MALLOC architecture, no IANA allocation policy is required. Note that 169 while no additional IANA allocation is required, addresses in the 170 MALLOC block are explicitly for allocation by MALLOC servers and MUST 171 NOT be used for other purposes. 173 11. Source Specific Multicast Block (232/8) 175 The Source Specific Multicast (SSM) block use is outlined in [SSM]. 176 In general, SSM is an extension of IP Multicast in which traffic is 177 forwarded to receivers from only those multicast sources for which 178 the receivers have explicitly expressed interest, and is primarily 179 targeted at one-to-many (broadcast) applications where large receiver 180 audiences require traffic from a small number of well known sources. 182 11.1. Allocation Guidelines 184 Because the SSM model essentially makes the entire multicast address 185 space local to the host, no IANA allocation policy is required. Note, 186 however, that while no additional IANA allocation is required, 187 addresses in the SSM block are explicitly for use by SSM and MUST NOT 188 be used for other purposes. 190 12. GLOP Block (233/8) 192 Addresses in the GLOP block are globally scoped statically assigned 193 addresses. The assignment is made by mapping a domain's autonomous 194 system number into the middle two octets of 233.X.Y.0/24. The mapping 195 and allocation is defined in [RFC2770]. 197 12.1. Allocation Guidelines 199 Because addresses in the GLOP block are algorithmically preassigned, 200 no IANA allocation policy is required. Note that while no additional 201 IANA allocation is required, addresses in the GLOP block are 202 allocated for use as defined in RFC 2770 and MUST NOT be used for 203 other purposes. 205 13. Administratively Scoped Address Block (239/8) 207 Addresses in the Administratively Scoped Address block are for local 208 use within a domain and are described in [RFC2365]. 210 13.1. Allocation Guidelines 212 Since addresses in this block are local to a domain, no IANA 213 allocation policy is required. 215 13.1.1. Relative Offsets 217 The relative offsets are used to ensure that a service can be located 218 independent of the extent of the enclosing scope (see RFC 2770 for 219 details). Since there are only 256 such offsets, the IANA should only 220 assign a relative offset to a protocol that provides an infra- 221 structure supporting service. See [IANA] for the current set of 222 assignments. 224 14. Annual Review 226 Given the dynamic nature of IPv4 multicast and its associated infra- 227 structure, and the previously undocumented IPv4 multicast address 228 assignment guidelines, the IANA should conduct an annual review of 229 currently assigned addresses. 231 14.1. Address Reclamation 233 During the review described above, addresses that were mis-assigned 234 should, where possible, be reclaimed or reassigned. An example of an 235 address block that might be reclaimed is 224.1.0/24 [RFC1190], as 236 this was an experimental allocation and is not in use. In addition, 237 those allocations in 224.0.1/24 that are not used for Internet-wide 238 protocol control messages (as described above) above might be 239 reclaimed. 241 The IANA should also review assignments in the AD-HOC, DIS Transient 242 Groups, and ST Multicast Groups blocks and reclaim those addresses 243 that are not in use on the global Internet (i.e, those applications 244 which can use SSM, GLOP, or Administratively Scoped addressing, or 245 are not globally routed). 247 15. Use of IANA Reserved Addresses 249 Applications MUST NOT use addressing in the IANA reserved blocks. 251 16. Appeals Process 253 An applicant that is denied a multicast assignment may ask for 254 additional consideration of its application. Such appeals SHOULD be 255 granted only in those cases in which (i). the applicant did not 256 provide a specification, or (ii). the applicant believes that the 257 IANA did not understand the technical basis on which the application 258 rests (and hence the need for assignment of globally scoped 259 addressing). 261 16.1. Requirements [RFC2026] 263 All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the 264 facts of the dispute. 266 All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public 267 knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged. 269 At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies 270 responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define 271 the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making 272 their decision. 274 In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute, 275 and the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must 276 be accomplished within a reasonable period of time. 278 16.2. Process 280 When an application is appealed, the application (and specification, 281 if one was provided) is to be reviewed by the IESG, indicating to the 282 IANA whether the application should be accepted. The IESG MAY 283 additionally employ Expert Review of the application. 285 16.2.1. Process Failure 287 If an applicant should disagree with an action taken by the IANA and 288 IESG in this process, that application should first try to clairfy 289 its position with the IANA. If the IANA is unable to satisfy the 290 applicant, the applicant may ask for its application (and 291 specification, if one was provided) to be reviewed by the IAB. 293 The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether an 294 assignment should be made. 296 17. Security Considerations 298 Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 300 18. Acknowledgments 302 The authors would like to thank Joe St. Sauver and John Meylor for 303 their constructive feedback and comments. 305 19. Author's Address: 307 Zaid Albanna 308 Worldcom 309 22001 Loudoun County Parkway 310 Ashburn, VA. 20147 311 Email: zaid@mci.net 313 Kevin Almeroth 314 UC Santa Barbara 315 Sata Barbara, CA. 316 Email: almeroth@cs.ucsb.edu 318 David Meyer 319 Cisco Systems, Inc. 320 170 Tasman Drive 321 San Jose, CA, 95134 322 Email: dmm@cisco.com 324 Michelle Schipper 325 IANA 326 iana@iana.org 328 20. References 330 [IANA] http://www.iana.org 332 [RFC1190] C. Topolcic, "Experimental Internet Stream 333 Protocol, Version 2 (ST-II)", RFC 1190, October, 334 1990. 336 [RFC2026] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- 337 Revision 3", RFC2026, October 1996. 339 [RFC2030] Mills, D., Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4 340 for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI", D. Mills, October 1996. 342 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to 343 Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 344 1997. 346 [RFC2328] J. Moy,"OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April, 1998. 348 [RFC2365] D. Meyer,"Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC 349 2365, July, 1998. 351 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for 352 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", 353 BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. 355 [RFC2730] Hanna, S., Patel, B. and M. Shah, "Multicast Address 356 Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP), December 357 1999. 359 [RFC2770] D. Meyer, and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", 360 RFC 2770, February, 2000 362 [RFC2780] S. Bradner and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines 363 For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related 364 Headers", RFC2780, March, 2000 366 [RFC2908] D. Thaler, M. Handley, D.Estrin, "The Internet Multicast 367 Address Allocation Architecture", RFC 2908, September 2000. 369 [RFC2974] M. Handley, C. Perkins, E. Whelan, "Session 370 Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000. 372 [SDR] http://www.aciri.org/sdr/ 374 [SSM] Holbrook, H., and Cain, B., "Source-Specific Multicast 375 for IP", draft-holbrook-ssm-arch-01.txt, Work in 376 progress. 378 21. Full Copyright Statement 380 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 382 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 383 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 384 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 385 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 386 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 387 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 388 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 389 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 390 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 391 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 392 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 393 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 394 English. 396 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 397 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 399 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 400 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 401 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 402 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 403 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 404 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.