MBONED Working Group David Meyer Internet Draft Sprint E|Solutions Peter Lothberg Sprint E|Solutions Category Best Current Practice draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-00.txt August, 2001 GLOP Addressing in 233/8 1. Status of this Memo 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. 2. Abstract This describes a policy for use of the class D address space using 233/8 as the statically assigned subset of the class D address space. This space is generally to be utilized for many to many applications, such as non-broadcast applications. This allocation is in addition to those described on [IANA] (e.g. [RFC2365]). The IANA has allocated 223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC2770]. This document updates RFC 2770. 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 or the author. David Meyer [Page 1] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-00.txt August, 2001 3. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 4. Problem Statement Multicast addresses have traditionally been allocated by a dynamic mechanism such as SDR [SAP]. However, many current multicast deployment models are not amenable to dynamic allocation. For example, many content aggregators require group addresses which are fixed on a time scale which is not amenable to allocation by a mechanism such as described in [SAP]. Perhaps more seriously, since there isn't general consensus by providers, content aggregators, or application writers as to the allocation mechanism, the Internet is left without a coherent multicast address allocation scheme. The MALLOC working group has created a specific strategy for global multicast address allocation [RFC2730, RFC2909]. However, this approach has not been widely implemented or deployed. This document proposes a solution for a subset of the problem, namely, those cases not covered by Source Specific Multicast [SS]. 5. Address Space The IANA has allocated 223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC277]. RFC 2770 describes the administration of middle two octetes of 233/8 in a manner similar to that described in RFC1797: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 233 | 16 bits AS | local bits | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 5.1. Example Consider, for example, AS 5662. Written in binary, left padded with 0s, we get 0001011000011110. Mapping the high order octet to the second octet of the address, and the low order octet to the third octet, we get 233.22.30/24. David Meyer [Page 2] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-00.txt August, 2001 6. Allocation As mentioned above, the allocation proposed here follows the RFC1797 (case 1) allocation scheme, modified as follows: the high order octet has the value 233, and the next 16 bits are a previously assigned Autonomous System number (AS), as registered by a network registry and listed in the RWhois database system. This allows a single /24 per AS. As was the case with RFC1797, using the AS number in this way allows automatic assignment of a single /24 to each service provider and does not require a registration step. 6.1. Private AS Space The address space mapped to the private AS space [RFC1930] is assigned to the IRRs to assign as per their local policy [RFC3138]. 7. Security Considerations The approach described here may have the effect of reduced exposure to denial of space attacks based on dynamic allocation. Further, since dynamic assignment does not cross domain boundaries, well known intra-domain security techniques can be applied. 8. IANA Considerations The IANA should assign 233/8 for this purpose. 9. Acknowledgments This idea originated with Peter Lothberg's idea that we use the same allocation (AS based) as described in RFC 1797 in the class D address space. Randy Bush and Mark Handley contributed many insightful comments. David Meyer [Page 3] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-00.txt August, 2001 10. References [IANA] http://www.iana.org/numbers.html [RFC1797] IANA, "Class A Subnet Experiment", RFC 1797, April, 1995. [RFC1930] J. Hawkinson, et. al., "Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)", RFC1930, March, 1996. [RFC2365] David Meyer, "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", July, 1998. [RFC2374] R. Hinden, et. al., "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format", July, 1998. [RFC2730] B. Patel, et. al., "Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC2730, December, 1999. [RFC2770] D. Meyer and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", RFC 2770, Feburary, 2000. [RFC2909] D. Estrin, et. al., "The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC) Protocol", RFC2909, September 2000. [RFC3138] D. Meyer "Extended Assignmentns in 233/8", RFC 3138, June 2001. [SAP] Handley, Mark, "SAP: Session Announcement Protocol", draft-ietf-mmusic-sap-00.txt, November, 1996. [SS] www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/single-source- multicast David Meyer [Page 4] Internet Draft draft-ietf-mboned-glop-update-00.txt July, 2001 11. Author's Address David Meyer Sprint VARESA0104 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston VA, 20196 Email: dmm@sprint.net Peter Lothberg Sprint VARESA0104 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston VA, 20196 Email: roll@sprint.net 12. 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 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. David Meyer [Page 5]