draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-01.txt   draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-02.txt 
Network Working Group David Meyer A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
INTERNET DRAFT Cisco Systems
Category Best Current Practices
April, 2001
Extended Allocations in 233/8
<draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-01.txt>
1. 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 RFC 3138
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
2. Copyright Notice Title: Extended Assignments in 233/8
Author(s): D. Meyer
Status: Informational
Date: June 2001
Mailbox: dmm@sprint.net
Pages: 4
Characters: 6776
Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. I-D Tag: draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-02.txt
3. Abstract URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3138.txt
This memo provides describes the mapping of the GLOP addresses This memo provides describes the mapping of the GLOP addresses
[RFC2770] corresponding to the private AS space [RFC1930]. corresponding to the private AS space.
4. 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].
5. 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 -
233.255.255.255) will be used by applications that cannot use
Administratively Scoped Addressing [RFC2365], GLOP Addressing
[RFC2770], or Source Specific Multicast (SSM) [SSM].
6. Assignment Criteria
Globally scoped IPv4 multicast addresses in the EGLOP space are
allocated by a Regional Registry (RIR). An applicant MUST, as per
[IANA], show that the request cannot be satisfied using
Administratively Scoped addressing [RFC2365], GLOP addressing
[RFC2770], or SSM [SSM]. The fine-grained allocation policy is left
to the allocating RIR.
7. Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
8. Acknowledgments
Mirjam Kuehne and Randy Bush provided many insightful comments on
earlier versions of this document.
9. Author's Address:
David Meyer
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA, 95134
Email: dmm@cisco.com
10. References
[IANA] http://www.iana.org
[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 This document is a product of the MBONE Deployment Working Group of
for IP", draft-holbrook-ssm-arch-02.txt, Work in the IETF.
progress.
[GUIDELINES] Albanna, Z., et. al, "IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
Address Allocation", not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
draft-ietf-mboned-iana-ipv4-mcast-guidelines-00.txt, memo is unlimited.
Work in progress.
11. Full Copyright Statement This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body
help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it Subject: getting rfcs
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 help: ways_to_get_rfcs
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARIRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARIRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION unlimited distribution.echo
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARIRANTIES OF Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/