idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mboned-static-allocation-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 == 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 ([RFC2365], [IANA]), 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 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: 'RFC2374' is defined on line 151, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-malloc-madcap-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-malloc-masc-01 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic draft: draft-ietf-malloc-masc (ref. 'MASC') -- 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) -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'SAP' Summary: 10 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 MBONED Working Group David Meyer 2 Internet Draft Cisco Systems 3 Peter Lothberg 4 Sprint 5 Category Experimental 6 draft-ietf-mboned-static-allocation-00.txt May, 1999 8 Static Allocations in 233/8 10 1. Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 13 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 2. Abstract 33 This describes an experimental policy for use of the class D address 34 space using 233/8 as the experimental statically assigned subset of 35 the class D address space. This new experimental allocation is in 36 addition to those described on [IANA] (e.g. [RFC2365]). 38 This memo is a product of the Multicast Deployment Working Group 39 (MBONED) in the Operations and Management Area of the Internet 40 Engineering Task Force. Submit comments to or 41 the authors. 43 3. Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. 47 4. Problem Statement 49 Multicast addresses have traditionally been allocated by a dynamic 50 mechanism such as SDR [SAP]. However, many current multicast 51 deployment models are not amenable to dynamic allocation. For 52 example, many content aggregators require group addresses which are 53 fixed on a time scale which is not amenable to allocation by a 54 mechanism such as described in [SAP]. Perhaps more seriously, since 55 there isn't general consensus by providers, content aggregators, or 56 application writers as to the allocation mechanism, the Internet is 57 left without a coherent multicast address allocation scheme. 59 The MALLOC working group is looking at a specific strategy for global 60 multicast address allocation [MADCAP, MASC]. This experiment will 61 proceed in parallel. MADCAP may be employed within AS's, if so 62 desired. 64 This document proposes an experimental method of statically 65 allocating multicast addresses with global scope. This experiment 66 will last for a period of one year, but may be extended as described 67 in section 8. 69 5. Address Space 71 For purposes of the experiment described here, the IANA should 72 allocate 233/8. The remaining 24 bits will be administered in a 73 manner similar to that described in RFC1797: 75 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 76 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 77 | 233 | 16 bits AS | local bits | 78 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 80 5.1. Example 82 Consider, for example, AS 5662. Written in binary, left padded with 83 0s, we get 0001011000011110. Mapping the high order octet to the 84 second octet of the address, and the low order octet to the third 85 octet, we get 233.22.30/24. 87 6. Allocation 89 As mentioned above, the allocation proposed here follows the RFC1797 90 (case 1) allocation scheme, modified as follows: the high order octet 91 has the value 233, and the next 16 bits are a previously assigned 92 Autonomous System number (AS), as registered by a network registry 93 and listed in the RWhois database system. This allows a single /24 94 per AS. 96 As was the case with RFC1797, using the AS number in this way allows 97 the experiment to get underway quickly in that it automatically 98 allocates some addresses to each service provider and does not 99 require a registration step. 101 6.1. Private AS Space 103 The address space mapped to the private AS space (as defined in 104 [RFC1930], is reserved for future allocation. 106 7. Security Considerations 108 The approach described here may have the effect of reduced exposure 109 to denial of space attacks based on dynamic allocation. Further, 110 since dynamic assignment does not cross domain boundaries, well known 111 intra-domain security techniques can be applied. 113 8. IANA Considerations 115 IANA should allocate 233/8 for experimental assignments. This 116 assignment should timeout one year after the assignment is made. The 117 assignment may be renewed at that time. It should be noted that the 118 experiment described here is in the same spirit the experiment 119 described in [RFC1797]. 121 9. Acknowledgments 123 This idea originated with Peter Lothberg's idea that we use the same 124 allocation (AS based) as described in RFC 1797 in the class D address 125 space. Randy Bush and Mark Handley contributed many insightful 126 comments. 128 10. References 130 [MADCAP] B. Patel, et. al., "Multicast Address Dynamic Client 131 Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", 132 draft-ietf-malloc-madcap-04.txt, Feburay, 1999. 134 [MASC] D. Estrin, et. al., "The Multicast Address-Set Claim 135 (MASC) Protocol", draft-ietf-malloc-masc-01.txt, August, 136 1998. 138 [IANA] www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/multicast-addresses 140 [RFC1797] IANA, "Class A Subnet Experiment", RFC 1797, April, 141 1995. 143 [RFC1930] J. Hawkinson, et. al., "Guidelines for creation, 144 selection, 145 and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)", RFC1930, 146 March, 1996. 148 [RFC2365] David Meyer, "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", 149 July, 1998. 151 [RFC2374] R. Hinden, et. al., "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast 152 Address Format", July, 1998. 154 [SAP] Handley, Mark, "SAP: Session Announcement Protocol", 155 draft-ietf-mmusic-sap-00.txt, November, 1996. 157 11. Author's Address 159 David Meyer 160 Cisco Systems, Inc. 161 170 W. Tasman Drive 162 San Jose, CA 95134-1706 163 United States 164 EMail: dmm@cisco.com 166 Peter Lothberg 167 Sprint 168 VARESA0104 169 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive 170 Reston VA, 20196 171 Email: roll@sprint.net