draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-02.txt   rfc3138.txt 
Network Working Group David Meyer Network Working Group D. Meyer
INTERNET DRAFT Cisco Systems Request for Comments: 3138 Sprint
Category Best Current Practices Category: Informational June 2001
April, 2001
Extended Assignments in 233/8 Extended Assignments in 233/8
<draft-ietf-mboned-glop-extensions-02.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 Status of this Memo
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 This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
2. Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
3. Abstract Abstract
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 1. Introduction
RFC 2770 [RFC2770] describes an experimental policy for use of the RFC 2770 [RFC2770] describes an experimental policy for use of the
class D address space using 233/8. The technique described there maps class D address space using 233/8. The technique described there
16 bits of Autonomous System number (AS) into the middle two octets maps 16 bits of Autonomous System number (AS) into the middle two
of 233/8 to yield a /24. While this technique has been successful, octets of 233/8 to yield a /24. While this technique has been
the assignments are inefficient in those cases in which a /24 is too successful, the assignments are inefficient in those cases in which a
small or the user doesn't have its own AS. /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 RFC 1930 [RFC1930] defines the private AS space to be 64512 through
65535. This memo expands on RFC 2770 to allow routing registries to 65535. This memo expands on RFC 2770 to allow routing registries to
assign multicast addresses from the GLOP space corresponding to the assign multicast addresses from the GLOP space corresponding to the
RFC 1930 private AS space. This space will be refered to as the EGLOP RFC 1930 private AS space. This space will be referred to as the
(Extended GLOP) address space. EGLOP (Extended GLOP) address space.
This memo is a product of the Multicast Deployment Working Group This memo is a product of the Multicast Deployment Working Group
(MBONED) in the Operations and Management Area of the Internet (MBONED) in the Operations and Management Area of the Internet
Engineering Task Force. Submit comments to <mboned@ns.uoregon.edu> or Engineering Task Force. Submit comments to <mboned@ns.uoregon.edu>
the authors. or the authors.
The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval", The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval",
"IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to "IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to
refer to the processes described in [RFC2434]. The keywords MUST, refer to the processes described in [RFC2434]. The keywords MUST,
MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, SHALL, SHALL NOT,
SHOULD, SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined in RFC 2119 SHOULD, SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined in RFC 2119
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
5. Overview 2. Overview
http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses defines a http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses defines a
mechanism for assignment of multicast addresses that are generally mechanism for assignment of multicast addresses that are generally
for use in network control applications. It is envisioned that those for use in network control applications. It is envisioned that those
addresses assigned from the EGLOP space (233.252.0.0 - addresses assigned from the EGLOP space (233.252.0.0 -
233.255.255.255) will be used by applications that cannot use 233.255.255.255) will be used by applications that cannot use
Administratively Scoped Addressing [RFC2365], GLOP Addressing Administratively Scoped Addressing [RFC2365], GLOP Addressing
[RFC2770], or Source Specific Multicast (Source Specific Multicast, [RFC2770], or Source Specific Multicast (Source Specific Multicast,
or SSM, is an extension of IP Multicast in which traffic is forwarded or SSM, is an extension of IP Multicast in which traffic is forwarded
to receivers from only those multicast sources for which the to receivers from only those multicast sources for which the
receivers have explicitly expressed interest, and is primarily receivers have explicitly expressed interest, and is primarily
targeted at one-to-many (broadcast) applications). targeted at one-to-many (broadcast) applications).
6. Assignment Criteria 3. Assignment Criteria
Globally scoped IPv4 multicast addresses in the EGLOP space are Globally scoped IPv4 multicast addresses in the EGLOP space are
assigned by a Regional Registry (RIR). An applicant MUST, as per assigned by a Regional Registry (RIR). An applicant MUST, as per
[IANA], show that the request cannot be satisfied using [IANA], show that the request cannot be satisfied using
Administratively Scoped addressing [RFC2365], GLOP addressing Administratively Scoped addressing [RFC2365], GLOP addressing
[RFC2770], or SSM. The fine-grained assignment policy is left to the [RFC2770], or SSM. The fine-grained assignment policy is left to the
assigning RIR. assigning RIR.
7. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
The assignment scheme described in this document does not effect the The assignment scheme described in this document does not effect the
security properties of the the single source or any source multicast security properties of the the single source or any source multicast
service models. service models.
8. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
Kurt Kayser, Mirjam Kuehne, Michelle Schipper and Randy Bush provided Kurt Kayser, Mirjam Kuehne, Michelle Schipper and Randy Bush provided
many insightful comments on earlier versions of this document. many insightful comments on earlier versions of this document.
9. Author's Address: 6. Author's Address
David Meyer David Meyer
Cisco Systems, Inc. Sprint
170 Tasman Drive 12502 Sunrise Valley Dr
San Jose, CA, 95134 Reston VA, 20191
Email: dmm@cisco.com
10. References EMail: dmm@sprint.net
7. References
[IANA] http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses [IANA] http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses
[RFC1930] J. Hawkinson and T. Bates, "Guidelines for [RFC1930] Hawkinson J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for
creation, selection, and registration of an creation, selection, and registration of an
Autonomous System (AS)", RFC 1930, March 1996. Autonomous System (AS)", RFC 1930, March 1996.
[RFC2026] S. Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", RFC2026, October 1996. Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
1997. March 1997.
[RFC2365] D. Meyer,"Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC [RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast",
2365, July, 1998. RFC 2365, July 1998.
[RFC2770] D. Meyer, and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", [RFC2770] Meyer, D. and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in
RFC 2770, February, 2000 233/8", RFC 2770, February 2000.
[RFC2780] S. Bradner and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation
For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol
Headers", RFC2780, March, 2000 and Related Headers", BCP 37, RFC 2780, March
2000.
11. Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
skipping to change at line 160 skipping to change at page 4, line 28
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English. English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARIRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARIRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARIRANTIES OF HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 33 change blocks. 
73 lines changed or deleted 55 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/