Network Working Group                                   David Meyer
INTERNET DRAFT                                          Cisco Systems
Category                                                Best Current Practices
                                                        March, 2001


                     Extended Allocations in 233/8
               <draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-00.txt>




. Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.

   Internet Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
















Meyer                                                           [Page 1]

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-00.txt     March, 2001


. Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.


. Abstract

   This memo provides describes the mapping of the GLOP addresses
   [RFC2770] corresponding to the private AS space [RFC1930].


. Introduction

   RFC 2770 [RFC2770] describes an experimental policy for use of the
   class D address space using 233/8. The technique described there maps
   16 bits of Autonomous System number (AS) into the middle two octets
   of 233/8 to yield a /24. While this technique has been successful,
   the assignments are inefficient in those cases in which a /24 is too
   small or the user doesn't have its own AS.

   RFC 1930 [RFC1930] defines the private AS space to be 64512 through
   65535. This memo expands on RFC 2770 to allow routing registries to
   allocate multicast addresses from the GLOP space corresponding to the
   RFC 1930 private ASes. This space will be refered to as the EGLOP
   (Extended GLOP) address space.


   This memo is a product of the Multicast  Deployment Working Group
   (MBONED) in the Operations and Management Area of the Internet
   Engineering Task Force. Submit comments to <mboned@ns.uoregon.edu> or
   the authors.


   The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval",
   "IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to
   refer to the processes described in [RFC2434]. The keywords MUST,
   MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, SHALL, SHALL NOT,
   SHOULD, SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined in RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].












Meyer                                                           [Page 2]

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-00.txt     March, 2001


. Overview

   http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/multicast.pl defines a mechanism for
   allocation of multicast addresses that are generally for use in
   network control applications (a more general description of these
   policies can be found in [GUIDELINES]). It is envisioned that those
   addresses allocated from the EGLOP space (233.242.0.0/24 -
   233.255.255.0/24) will be used by applications that cannot use
   Administratively Scoped Addressing [RFC2365], GLOP Addressing
   [RFC2770], or Source Specific Multicast (SSM) [SSM].


. Assignment Criteria

   An application for a globally scoped IPv4 multicast addresses issued
   by a Regional Registry (RIR). The applicant MUST

    (i).   Show that the request cannot be satisfied using
           Administratively Scoped addressing, GLOP addressing,
           or SSM.

    (ii).  Request IP address space from upstream provider

    (iii). Request IP address space from provider's provider


   If the request cannot be satisfied by (i)-(iii) above, the RIR MAY
   consider allocation from the range 233.242.0.0 - 233.255.255.0.

   Address space allocation size is the responsibility of the allocating
   RIR. The blocks MUST BE be issued on appropriate CIDR boundaries.
   Prefixes shorter than /21 should not be allocated.

   Because the number of available IPv4 multicast addresses on the
   Internet is extremely limited, many factors must be considered in the
   determination of address space allocations. Therefore, multicast
   address space MUST be allocated using a slow-start model. Allocations
   SHOULD be based on justified need, not solely on a predicted customer
   base. In particular, delayed deployment of a given technology (e.g.
   SSM) is not a basis for assignment of addresses from the EGLOP space.











Meyer                                                           [Page 3]

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-00.txt     March, 2001


. Security Considerations

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.


. Acknowledgments



. Author's Address:

   David Meyer
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA, 95134
   Email: dmm@cisco.com


. References

   [IANA]          http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/multicast-addresses

   [RFC1930]       J. Hawkinson and T. Bates, "Guidelines for
                   creation, selection, and registration of an
                   Autonomous System (AS)", RFC 1930, March 1996.

   [RFC2026]       S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process --
                   Revision 3", RFC2026, October 1996.

   [RFC2119]       S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to
                   Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March,
                   1997.

   [RFC2365]       D. Meyer,"Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC
                   2365, July, 1998.

   [RFC2770]       D. Meyer, and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8",
                   RFC 2770, February, 2000

   [RFC2780]       S. Bradner and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines
                   For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related
                   Headers", RFC2780, March, 2000

   [SSM]           Holbrook, H., and Cain, B., "Source-Specific Multicast
                   for IP", draft-holbrook-ssm-arch-01.txt, Work in
                   progress.





Meyer                                                           [Page 4]

 
Internet Draft  draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-00.txt     March, 2001


   [GUIDELINES]    IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address
                   Allocation, draft-albanna-iana-IPv4-mcast-guidelines-00.txt,
                   Work in progress.




. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARIRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARIRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARIRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

















Meyer                                                           [Page 5]