Network Working Group D. Thaler Internet-Draft Microsoft Expires:
January 27,August 28, 2008 February 25, 2008 July 26, 2007Unicast-Prefix-based IPv4 Multicast Addresses draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-04.txtdraft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-05.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 27,August 28, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).(2008). Abstract This specification defines an extension to the multicast addressing architecture of the IP Version 4 protocol. The extension presented in this document allows for unicast-prefix-based allocationassignment of multicast addresses. By delegating multicast addresses at the same time as unicast prefixes, network operators will be able to identify their multicast addresses without needing to run an inter-domain allocation protocol. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Address SpaceTerminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Security ConsiderationsAddress Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. IANA ConsiderationsExamples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Informative ReferencesSecurity Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 67 1. Introduction RFC 3180 [RFC3180] defined an experimental allocation mechanism (called "GLOP") in 233/8 whereby an Autonomous System (AS) number is embedded in the middle 16 bits of an IPv4 multicast address, resulting in 256 multicast addresses per AS. Advantages of this mechanism include the ability to get multicast address space without an inter-domain multicast address allocation protocol, and the ease of determining the AS ofthat was assigned the owner of anaddress for debugging and auditing purposes. Some disadvantages of GLOP include: o RFC 4893 [RFC4893] expands the size of an AS number to 4 bytes, and GLOP cannot work with 4-byte AS numbers. o When an AS covers multiple sites or organizations, administration of the multicast address space within an AS must be handled by other mechanisms, such as manual administrative effort or MADCAP [RFC2730]. o During debugging, identifying the AS does not immediately identify the owningcorrect organization when an AS covers multiple organizations. o Only 256 addresses are automatically available per AS, and obtaining any more requires administrative effort. More recently, a mechanism [RFC3306] has been developed for IPv6 that provides a multicast range to every IPv6 subnet, which is at a much finer granularity than an AS. As a result, the first three disadvantages above are avoided (and the last disadvantage does not apply to IPv6 due to the extended size of the address space). Another advantage of providing multicast space to a subnet, rather than just to an entire AS, is that multicast address allocationassignment within the range need only be coordinated within the subnet. This draft specifies a mechanism similar to [RFC3306], whereby a range of global IPv4 multicast address space is provided to each organization that has unicast address space. A resulting advantage over GLOP is that the mechanisms in IPv4 and IPv6 become more similar. This document proposes an experimental method of statically allocating multicast address ranges with global scope. As described2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in section Section 4,this experiment will last for a period of one year, but maydocument are to be extended. 2.interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 3. Address Space (RFC-editor: replace TBD belowin this section and the next with IANA-assignedIANA- assigned value, and delete this note.) A multicast address with the prefix TBD/8 indicates that the address is a Unicast-Based Multicast (UBM) address. The remaining 24 bits are used as follows: Bits: | 8 | Unicast Prefix Length | 24 - Unicast Prefix Length | +-----+-----------------------+----------------------------+ Value: | TBD | Unicast Prefix | Group ID | +-----+-----------------------+----------------------------+ For organizations with a /24 or shorter prefix, the unicast prefix of the organization is appended to the common /8. Any remaining bits may be assigned by any mechanism the organization wishes. For example, an organization that has a subnet with a /24 or shorter/16 prefix assigned might choose to a link may wish to embedassign multicast addresses manually from the entire subnet/24 multicast prefix withinderived from the multicast address, withabove method. Alternatively, the remaining bits assigned by hosts withinorganization might choose to delegate the link (e.g., using manual configuration).use of multicast addresses to individual subnets that have a /24 or shorter unicast prefix, or it might choose some other method. Organizations with a prefix length longer than 24 do not receive any multicast address space from this mechanism; in such cases, another mechanism must be used. Compared to GLOP, an AS will receive more address space via this mechanism if it has more than a /16 for unicast space. An AS will receive less address space than it does from GLOP if it has less than a /16. The owner of aorganization that is assigned the UBM address can be determined by taking the multicast address, shifting it left by 8 bits, and identifying the owner ofwho has been assigned the address space covering the resulting unicast address. 3.The embedded unicast prefix MUST be a global unicast prefix (i.e., no loopback, multicast, link-local, or private-use IP address space). In addition, since global unicast addresses are not permanently assigned, UBM addresses MUST NOT be hard-coded in applications. 4. Examples The following are a few examples of the structure of unicast-prefix based multicast addresses. o Consider an organization that has been assigned the global unicast address space 192.0.2.0/24. This means that organization can use the global multicast address TBD.192.0.2 without coordinating with any other entity. Someone who sees this multicast address and wants to find who is using it can mentally shift the address left by 8 bits to get 192.0.2.0, and then look up who has been assigned unicast address space that includes that address. o Consider an organization has been assigned a larger address space, x.y.0.0/16. This organization can use the global multicast address space TBD.x.y.0/24 without coordinating with any other entity, and can assign addresses within this space by any mechanism the organization wishes. Someone who sees a multicast address (say) TBD.x.y.10, and wants to find who is using it can mentally shift the address left by 8 bits to get x.y.10.0, and can then look up who has been assigned unicast address space that includes that address. 5. Security Considerations The same well known intra-domain security techniques can be applied as with GLOP. Furthermore, when dynamic allocation is used within a prefix, the approach described here may have the effect of reduced exposure to denial of space attacks, since the topological area within which nodes compete for addresses within the same prefix is reduced from an entire AS to only within an individual organization or an even smaller area. 4.6. IANA Considerations IANA should assign a /8 in the global IPv4 multicast address space for this purpose. 7. Acknowledgments This assignment should time out one year afterdocument was updated based on feedback from the assignment is made. The assignment may be renewed at that time. 5.MBoneD working group. In particular, Tim Chown, Toerless Eckert, Prashant Jhingran, Peter Koch, John Linn, Dave Meyer, Pekka Savola, Greg Shepherd, and Stig Venaas provided valuable suggestions on the text. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 8.2. Informative References [RFC2730] Hanna, S., Patel, B., and M. Shah, "Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC 2730, December 1999. [RFC3180] Meyer, D. and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", BCP 53, RFC 3180, September 2001. [RFC3306] Haberman, B. and D. Thaler, "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6 Multicast Addresses", RFC 3306, August 2002. [RFC4893] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space", RFC 4893, May 2007. Author's Address Dave Thaler Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 USA Phone: +1 425 703 8835 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).(2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at email@example.com. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).