--- 1/draft-ietf-mboned-iana-ipv4-mcast-guidelines-00.txt 2006-02-05 00:19:43.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mboned-iana-ipv4-mcast-guidelines-01.txt 2006-02-05 00:19:43.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,23 +1,23 @@ Network Working Group Zaid Albanna -INTERNET DRAFT Worldcom +INTERNET DRAFT Juniper Networks Kevin Almeroth UCSB David Meyer Cisco Systems Michelle Schipper IANA Category Best Current Practices - March, 2001 + April, 2001 IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Allocation - + 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. @@ -107,20 +107,22 @@ control traffic that is not forwarded off link. Examples of this type of use include OSPFIGP All Routers (224.0.0.5) [RFC2328]. 6.1. Allocation Guidelines Allocation of addresses in the Local Network Configuration Block SHOULD BE be accompanied by a specification ("Specification Required"). This specification will typically take the form of an internet draft or RFC. +Internet Draf-draft-ietf-mboned-iana-IPv4-mcast-guidelines-01.txt April, 2001 + 7. Internetwork Control Block (224.0.1/24) Addresses in the Internetwork Control block are used for protocol control that must be forwarded through the Internet. Examples include 224.0.1.1 (NTP [RFC2030]) and 224.0.1.68 (mdhcpdisover [RFC2730]). 7.1. Allocation Guidelines Allocation of addresses in the Internetwork Control block SHOULD BE accompanied by a specification ("Specification Required"). This @@ -165,26 +167,24 @@ 10.1. Allocation Guidelines Since addresses in the MALLOC block are chosen by elements of the MALLOC architecture, no IANA allocation policy is required. Note that while no additional IANA allocation is required, addresses in the MALLOC block are explicitly for allocation by MALLOC servers and MUST NOT be used for other purposes. 11. Source Specific Multicast Block (232/8) - The Source Specific Multicast (SSM) block use is outlined in [SSM]. - In general, SSM is an extension of IP Multicast in which traffic is - forwarded to receivers from only those multicast sources for which - the receivers have explicitly expressed interest, and is primarily - targeted at one-to-many (broadcast) applications where large receiver - audiences require traffic from a small number of well known sources. + The Source Specific Multicast (SSM) is an extension of IP Multicast + in which traffic is forwarded to receivers from only those multicast + sources for which the receivers have explicitly expressed interest, + and is primarily targeted at one-to-many (broadcast) applications. 11.1. Allocation Guidelines Because the SSM model essentially makes the entire multicast address space local to the host, no IANA allocation policy is required. Note, however, that while no additional IANA allocation is required, addresses in the SSM block are explicitly for use by SSM and MUST NOT be used for other purposes. 12. GLOP Block (233/8) @@ -207,26 +207,27 @@ Addresses in the Administratively Scoped Address block are for local use within a domain and are described in [RFC2365]. 13.1. Allocation Guidelines Since addresses in this block are local to a domain, no IANA allocation policy is required. 13.1.1. Relative Offsets - The relative offsets are used to ensure that a service can be located - independent of the extent of the enclosing scope (see RFC 2770 for - details). Since there are only 256 such offsets, the IANA should only - assign a relative offset to a protocol that provides an infra- - structure supporting service. See [IANA] for the current set of - assignments. + The relative offsets [RFC2365] are used to ensure that a service can + be located independent of the extent of the enclosing scope (see RFC + 2770 for details). Since there are only 256 such offsets, the IANA + should only assign a relative offset to a protocol that provides an + infra-structure supporting service. Examples of such services include + the Session Announcement Protocol [RFC2974]. See [IANA] for the + current set of assignments. 14. Annual Review Given the dynamic nature of IPv4 multicast and its associated infra- structure, and the previously undocumented IPv4 multicast address assignment guidelines, the IANA should conduct an annual review of currently assigned addresses. 14.1. Address Reclamation @@ -243,93 +244,54 @@ that are not in use on the global Internet (i.e, those applications which can use SSM, GLOP, or Administratively Scoped addressing, or are not globally routed). 15. Use of IANA Reserved Addresses Applications MUST NOT use addressing in the IANA reserved blocks. 16. Appeals Process - An applicant that is denied a multicast assignment may ask for - additional consideration of its application. Such appeals SHOULD be - granted only in those cases in which (i). the applicant did not - provide a specification, or (ii). the applicant believes that the - IANA did not understand the technical basis on which the application - rests (and hence the need for assignment of globally scoped - addressing). - -16.1. Requirements [RFC2026] - - All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the - facts of the dispute. - - All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public - knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged. - - At all stages of the appeals process, the individuals or bodies - responsible for making the decisions have the discretion to define - the specific procedures they will follow in the process of making - their decision. - - In all cases a decision concerning the disposition of the dispute, - and the communication of that decision to the parties involved, must - be accomplished within a reasonable period of time. - -16.2. Process - - When an application is appealed, the application (and specification, - if one was provided) is to be reviewed by the IESG, indicating to the - IANA whether the application should be accepted. The IESG MAY - additionally employ Expert Review of the application. - -16.2.1. Process Failure - - If an applicant should disagree with an action taken by the IANA and - IESG in this process, that application should first try to clairfy - its position with the IANA. If the IANA is unable to satisfy the - applicant, the applicant may ask for its application (and - specification, if one was provided) to be reviewed by the IAB. - - The IAB decision is final with respect to the question of whether an - assignment should be made. + Appleals of this process are to be handled in accordance with Section + 6.5 of RFC 2026 [RFC2026]. 17. Security Considerations - Security issues are not discussed in this memo. + The allocation guidelines described in this document do not alter the + security properties of either the Any Source or Source Specific + multicast service models. 18. Acknowledgments - The authors would like to thank Joe St. Sauver and John Meylor for - their constructive feedback and comments. + The authors would like to thank Joe St. Sauver, John Meylor, and + Randy Bush for their constructive feedback and comments. 19. Author's Address: Zaid Albanna - Worldcom - 22001 Loudoun County Parkway - Ashburn, VA. 20147 - Email: zaid@mci.net + 1149 N. Mathilda Ave + Sunnyvale, CA. 94089 + zaid@juniper.net Kevin Almeroth UC Santa Barbara Sata Barbara, CA. Email: almeroth@cs.ucsb.edu David Meyer Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 Tasman Drive San Jose, CA, 95134 Email: dmm@cisco.com Michelle Schipper - IANA + IANA Administrator iana@iana.org 20. References [IANA] http://www.iana.org [RFC1190] C. Topolcic, "Experimental Internet Stream Protocol, Version 2 (ST-II)", RFC 1190, October, 1990. @@ -356,32 +318,28 @@ Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP), December 1999. [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 - [RFC2908] D. Thaler, M. Handley, D.Estrin, "The Internet Multicast + [RFC2908] D. Thaler, M. Handley, D.Estrin, "Theh Internet Multicast Address Allocation Architecture", RFC 2908, September 2000. [RFC2974] M. Handley, C. Perkins, E. Whelan, "Session Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000. [SDR] http://www.aciri.org/sdr/ - [SSM] Holbrook, H., and Cain, B., "Source-Specific Multicast - for IP", draft-holbrook-ssm-arch-01.txt, Work in - progress. - 21. 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