idnits 2.17.1 draft-meyer-glop-extensions-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 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 6 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 11 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: 'RFC 2770' is mentioned on line 45, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 2770 (Obsoleted by RFC 3180) == Missing Reference: 'RFC2434' is mentioned on line 69, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) == Unused Reference: 'IANA' is defined on line 126, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2026' is defined on line 132, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2780' is defined on line 145, 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-01 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'SSM' -- No information found for draft-albanna-iana-IPv4-mcast-guidelines - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'GUIDELINES' Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 11 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group David Meyer 3 INTERNET DRAFT Cisco Systems 4 Category Best Current Practices 5 February, 2001 7 Extended Allocations in 233/8 8 10 1. Status of this Memo 12 This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the 13 Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for 14 improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 16 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 17 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. 19 Internet Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 21 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 2. Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 38 3. Abstract 40 This memo provides describes the mapping of the GLOP addresses [RFC2770] 41 corresponding to the private AS space [RFC1930]. 43 4. Introduction 45 RFC 2770 [RFC 2770] describes an experimental policy for use of the 46 class D address space using 233/8. The technique described there maps 47 16 bits of Autonomous System number (AS) into the middle two octets 48 of 233/8 to yield a /24. While this technique has been successful, 49 the assignments are inefficient in those cases in which a /24 is too 50 small or the user doesn't have its own AS. 52 RFC 1930 [RFC1930] defines the private AS space to be 64512 through 53 65535. This memo expands on RFC 2770 to allow routing registries to 54 allocate multicast addresses from the GLOP space corresponding to the 55 RFC 1930 private ASes. This space will be refered to as the EGLOP 56 (Extended GLOP) address space. 58 This memo is a product of the Multicast Deployment Working Group 59 (MBONED) in the Operations and Management Area of the Internet 60 Engineering Task Force. Submit comments to or 61 the authors. 63 The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval", 64 "IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to 65 refer to the processes described in [RFC2434]. The keywords MUST, 66 MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, 67 SHOULD, SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined in RFC 2119 68 [RFC2119]. 70 5. Overview 72 http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/multicast.pl defines a mechanism for 73 allocation of multicast addresses that are generally for use in 74 network control applications (a more general description of these 75 policies can be found in [GUIDELINES]). It is envisioned that those 76 addresses allocated from the EGLOP space (233.242.0.0/24 - 77 233.255.255.0/24) will be used by applications that cannot use 78 Administratively Scoped Addressing [RFC2365], GLOP Addressing 79 [RFC2770], or Source Specific Multicast (SSM) [SSM]. 81 6. Assignment Criteria 83 An application for a globally scoped IPv4 multicast addresses issued 84 by a Regional Registry (RR). The applicant should MUST 86 (i). Show that the request cannot be satisfied using 87 Administratively Scoped addressing, GLOP addressing, 88 or SSM. 90 (ii). Request IP address space from upstream provider 92 (iii). Request IP address space from provider's provider 94 If the request cannot be satisfied by (i)-(iii) above, the RR MAY 95 consider allocation from the range 233.242.0.0/24 - 233.255.255.0/24. 97 Address space allocation size is the responsibility of the allocating 98 RR. The blocks MUST BE be issued on appropriate CIDR boundaries. 99 Prefix shorter than /21 should not be allocated. 101 Because the number of available IPv4 multicast addresses on the 102 Internet extremely limited, many factors must be considered in the 103 determination of address space allocations. Therefore, multicast 104 address space MUST BE allocated using a slow-start model. Allocations 105 SHOULD BE based on justified need, not solely on a predicted customer 106 base. In particular, delayed deployment of a given technology (e.g. 107 SSM) is not a basis for assignment of addressing from the EGLOP 108 space. 110 7. Security Considerations 112 Security issues are not discussed in this memo. 114 8. Acknowledgments 116 9. Author's Address: 118 David Meyer 119 Cisco Systems, Inc. 120 170 Tasman Drive 121 San Jose, CA, 95134 122 Email: dmm@cisco.com 124 10. References 126 [IANA] http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/multicast-addresses 128 [RFC1930] J. Hawkinson and T. Bates, "Guidelines for 129 creation, selection, and registration of an 130 Autonomous System (AS)", RFC 1930, March 1996. 132 [RFC2026] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- 133 Revision 3", RFC2026, October 1996. 135 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to 136 Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 137 1997. 139 [RFC2365] D. Meyer,"Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC 140 2365, July, 1998. 142 [RFC2770] D. Meyer, and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", 143 RFC 2770, February, 2000 145 [RFC2780] S. Bradner and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines 146 For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related 147 Headers", RFC2780, March, 2000 149 [SSM] Holbrook, H., and Cain, B., "Source-Specific Multicast 150 for IP", draft-holbrook-ssm-arch-01.txt, Work in 151 progress. 153 [GUIDELINES] IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address 154 Allocation, draft-albanna-iana-IPv4-mcast-guidelines-00.txt, 155 Work in progress. 157 11. Full Copyright Statement 159 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 161 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 162 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 163 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 164 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 165 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 166 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 167 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 168 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 169 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 170 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 171 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 172 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 173 English. 175 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 176 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 178 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 179 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 180 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 181 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 182 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 183 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.