idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mboned-iana-ipv4-mcast-guidelines-03.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 10 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC1190' is defined on line 288, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- 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' Summary: 14 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Zaid Albanna 2 INTERNET DRAFT Juniper Networks 3 Kevin Almeroth 4 UCSB 5 David Meyer 6 Sprint 7 Michelle Schipper 8 IANA 9 Category Best Current Practices 10 June, 2001 12 IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments 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 assignment of IPv4 multicast address space 68 is recommended only in limited circumstances. Specifically, the IANA 69 should only assign addresses in those cases where the dynamic 70 selection (SDP/SAP), GLOP, SSM or Administratively Scoped address 71 spaces cannot be used. The guidelines described below are reflected 72 in http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses. 74 5. Definition of Current Assignment Practice 76 Unlike IPv4 unicast address assignment, where blocks of addresses are 77 delegated to regional registries, IPv4 multicast addresses are 78 assigned directly by the IANA. Current assignments appear as follows 79 [IANA]: 81 224.0.0.0 - 224.0.0.255 (224.0.0/24) Local Network Control Block 82 224.0.1.0 - 224.0.1.255 (224.0.1/24) Internetwork Control Block 83 224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.0 AD-HOC Block 84 224.1.0.0 - 224.1.255.255 (224.1/16) ST Multicast Groups 85 224.2.0.0 - 224.2.255.255 (224.2/16) SDP/SAP Block 86 224.252.0.0 - 224.255.255.255 DIS Transient Block 87 225.0.0.0 - 225.255.255.255 (225/8) MALLOC Block 88 226.0.0.0 - 231.255.255.255 RESERVED 89 232.0.0.0 - 232.255.255.255 (232/8) Source Specific Multicast Block 90 233.0.0.0 - 233.255.255.255 (233/8) GLOP Block 91 234.0.0.0 - 238.255.255.255 RESERVED 92 239.0.0.0 - 239.255.255.255 (239/8) Administratively Scoped Block 94 The IANA generally assigns addresses from the Local Network Control, 95 Internetwork Control, and AD-HOC blocks. Assignment guidelines for 96 each of these blocks, as well as for the MALLOC, Source Specific 97 Multicast, GLOP and Administratively Scoped Blocks, are described 98 below. 100 6. Local Network Control Block (224.0.0/24) 102 Addresses in the Local Network Control block are used for protocol 103 control traffic that is not forwarded off link. Examples of this type 104 of use include OSPFIGP All Routers (224.0.0.5) [RFC2328]. 106 6.1. Assignment Guidelines 108 Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 [RFC2780], assignments from the 109 Local Network Control block follow an Expert Review, IESG Approval or 110 Standards Action process. See [IANA] for the current set of 111 assignments. 113 7. Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1/24) 115 Addresses in the Internetwork Control block are used for protocol 116 control that must be forwarded through the Internet. Examples include 117 224.0.1.1 (NTP [RFC2030]) and 224.0.1.68 (mdhcpdisover [RFC2730]). 119 7.1. Assignment Guidelines 121 Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 [RFC2780], assignments from the 122 Internetwork Control block follow an Expert Review, IESG Approval or 123 Standards Action process. See [IANA] for the current set of 124 assignments. 126 8. AD-HOC Block (224.0.2.0/24 - 224.0.255.0/24) 128 Addresses in the AD-HOC block have traditionally been assigned for 129 those applications that don't fit in either the Local or Internetwork 130 Control blocks. These addresses are globally routed and are typically 131 used by applications that require small blocks of addressing (e.g., 132 less than a /24). 134 8.1. Assignment Guidelines 136 In general, the IANA SHOULD NOT assign addressing in the AD-HOC 137 Block. However, the IANA may under special special circumstances, 138 assign addressing from this block. Pursuant to section 4.4.2 of RFC 139 2780 [RFC2780], assignments from the AD-HOC block follow an Expert 140 Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. See [IANA] for the 141 current set of assignments. 143 9. SDP/SAP Block (224.2/16) 145 Addresses in the SDP/SAP block are used by applications that receive 146 addresses through the Session Announcement Protocol [RFC2974] for use 147 via applications like the session directory tool (such as SDR [SDR]). 149 9.1. Assignment Guidelines 151 Since addresses in the SDP/SAP block are chosen randomly from the 152 range of addresses not already in use [RFC2974], no IANA assignment 153 policy is required. Note that while no additional IANA assignment is 154 required, addresses in the SDP/SAP block are explicitly for use by 155 SDP/SAP and MUST NOT be used for other purposes. 157 10. MALLOC Block (225/8) 159 Addresses in the MALLOC block are dynamically assigned by the MALLOC 160 suite of protocols [RFC2908]. This assignment is temporary and MUST 161 BE reviewed annually. 163 10.1. Assignment Guidelines 165 Since addresses in the MALLOC block are chosen by elements of the 166 MALLOC architecture, no IANA assignment policy is required. Note that 167 while no additional IANA assignment is required, addresses in the 168 MALLOC block are explicitly for assignment by MALLOC servers and MUST 169 NOT be used for other purposes. 171 11. Source Specific Multicast Block (232/8) 173 The Source Specific Multicast (SSM) is an extension of IP Multicast 174 in which traffic is forwarded to receivers from only those multicast 175 sources for which the receivers have explicitly expressed interest, 176 and is primarily targeted at one-to-many (broadcast) applications. 178 11.1. Assignment Guidelines 180 Because the SSM model essentially makes the entire multicast address 181 space local to the host, no IANA assignment policy is required. Note, 182 however, that while no additional IANA assignment is required, 183 addresses in the SSM block are explicitly for use by SSM and MUST NOT 184 be used for other purposes. 186 12. GLOP Block (233/8) 188 Addresses in the GLOP block are globally scoped statically assigned 189 addresses. The assignment is made by mapping a domain's autonomous 190 system number into the middle two octets of 233.X.Y.0/24. The mapping 191 and assignment is defined in [RFC2770]. 193 12.1. Assignment Guidelines 195 Because addresses in the GLOP block are algorithmically preassigned, 196 no IANA assignment policy is required. Note that while no additional 197 IANA assignment is required, addresses in the GLOP block are assigned 198 for use as defined in RFC 2770 and MUST NOT be used for other 199 purposes. 201 13. Administratively Scoped Address Block (239/8) 203 Addresses in the Administratively Scoped Address block are for local 204 use within a domain and are described in [RFC2365]. 206 13.1. Assignment Guidelines 208 Since addresses in this block are local to a domain, no IANA 209 assignment policy is required. 211 13.1.1. Relative Offsets 213 The relative offsets [RFC2365] are used to ensure that a service can 214 be located independent of the extent of the enclosing scope (see RFC 215 2770 for details). Since there are only 256 such offsets, the IANA 216 should only assign a relative offset to a protocol that provides an 217 infra-structure supporting service. Examples of such services include 218 the Session Announcement Protocol [RFC2974]. Pursuant to section 219 4.4.2 of RFC 2780 [RFC2780], assignments of Relative Offsets follow 220 an Expert Review, IESG Approval or Standards Action process. See 221 [IANA] for the current set of assignments. 223 14. Annual Review 225 Given the dynamic nature of IPv4 multicast and its associated infra- 226 structure, and the previously undocumented IPv4 multicast address 227 assignment guidelines, the IANA should conduct an annual review of 228 currently assigned addresses. 230 14.1. Address Reclamation 232 During the review described above, addresses that were mis-assigned 233 should, where possible, be reclaimed or reassigned. 235 The IANA should also review assignments in the AD-HOC, DIS Transient 236 Groups, and ST Multicast Groups blocks and reclaim those addresses 237 that are not in use on the global Internet (i.e, those applications 238 which can use SSM, GLOP, or Administratively Scoped addressing, or 239 are not globally routed). 241 15. Use of IANA Reserved Addresses 243 Applications MUST NOT use addressing in the IANA reserved blocks. 245 16. Appeals Process 247 Appeals of this process are to be handled in accordance with Section 248 6.5 of RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. 250 17. Security Considerations 252 The assignment guidelines described in this document do not alter the 253 security properties of either the Any Source or Source Specific 254 multicast service models. 256 18. Acknowledgments 258 The authors would like to thank Joe St. Sauver, John Meylor, Randy 259 Bush, and Thomas Narten for their constructive feedback and comments. 261 19. Author's Address: 263 Zaid Albanna 264 1149 N. Mathilda Ave 265 Sunnyvale, CA. 94089 266 zaid@juniper.net 268 Kevin Almeroth 269 UC Santa Barbara 270 Santa Barbara, CA. 271 Email: almeroth@cs.ucsb.edu 273 David Meyer 274 Sprint E|Solutions 275 Email: dmm@sprint.net 277 Michelle Schipper 278 IANA Administrator 279 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 280 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 281 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 282 iana@iana.org 284 20. References 286 [IANA] http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses 288 [RFC1190] C. Topolcic, "Experimental Internet Stream 289 Protocol, Version 2 (ST-II)", RFC 1190, October, 290 1990. 292 [RFC2026] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- 293 Revision 3", RFC2026, October 1996. 295 [RFC2030] Mills, D., Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4 296 for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI", D. Mills, October 1996. 298 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to 299 Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 300 1997. 302 [RFC2328] J. Moy,"OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April, 1998. 304 [RFC2365] D. Meyer,"Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC 305 2365, July, 1998. 307 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for 308 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", 309 BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. 311 [RFC2730] Hanna, S., Patel, B. and M. Shah, "Multicast Address 312 Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP), December 313 1999. 315 [RFC2770] D. Meyer, and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", 316 RFC 2770, February, 2000 318 [RFC2780] S. Bradner and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines 319 For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related 320 Headers", RFC2780, March, 2000 322 [RFC2908] D. Thaler, M. Handley, D.Estrin, "Theh Internet Multicast 323 Address Allocation Architecture", RFC 2908, September 2000. 325 [RFC2974] M. Handley, C. Perkins, E. Whelan, "Session 326 Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000. 328 [SDR] http://www.aciri.org/sdr/ 330 21. Full Copyright Statement 332 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 334 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 335 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 336 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 337 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 338 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 339 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 340 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 341 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 342 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 343 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 344 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 345 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 346 English. 348 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 349 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 351 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 352 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 353 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 354 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 355 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 356 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.