GLOP Addressing in 233/8
RFC 3180

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 01

Network Working Group                                           D. Meyer
Request for Comments: 3180                                   P. Lothberg
Obsoletes: 2770                                                   Sprint
BCP: 53                                                   September 2001
Category: Best Current Practice

                        GLOP Addressing in 233/8

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.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document defines the policy for the use of 233/8 for statically
   assigned multicast addresses.

1. Introduction

   It is envisioned that the primary use of this space will be many-to-
   many 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 obsoletes RFC 2770.

2. Problem Statement

   Multicast addresses have traditionally been allocated by a dynamic
   mechanism such as SDR [RFC2974].  However, many current multicast
   deployment models are not amenable to dynamic allocation.  For
   example, many content aggregators require group addresses that are
   fixed on a time scale that is not amenable to allocation by a
   mechanism such as described in [RFC2974].  Perhaps more seriously,
   since there is not 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.

Meyer & Lothberg         Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]
RFC 3180                GLOP Addressing in 233/8          September 2001

   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.

3. Address Space

   The IANA has allocated 223/8 as per RFC 2770 [RFC2770].  RFC 2770
   describes the administration of the middle two octets of 233/8 in a
   manner similar to that described in RFC 1797:

       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   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

3.1. 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.

4. Allocation

   As mentioned above, the allocation proposed here follows the RFC 1797
   (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 RFC 1797, using the AS number in this way allows
   automatic assignment of a single /24 to each service provider and
   does not require an additional registration step.

4.1. Private AS Space

   The part of 233/8 that is mapped to the private AS space [RFC1930] is
   assigned to the IRRs [RFC3138].

5. Large AS Numbers

   It is important to note that this approach will work only for two
   octet AS numbers.  In particular, it does not work for any AS number
   extension scheme.

Meyer & Lothberg         Best Current Practice                  [Page 2]
RFC 3180                GLOP Addressing in 233/8          September 2001

6. Security Considerations

   The approach described here may have the effect of reduced exposure
   to denial-of-service attacks based on dynamic allocation.  Further,
   since dynamic assignment does not cross domain boundaries, well-known
   intra-domain security techniques can be applied.

7. IANA Considerations

   The IANA has assigned 233/8 for this purpose.

8. Acknowledgments

   This proposal originated with Peter Lothberg's idea that we use the
   same allocation (AS based) as described in RFC 1797.  Randy Bush and
   Mark Handley contributed many insightful comments, and Pete and
   Natalie Whiting contributed greatly to the readability of this
   document.

9. References

   [IANA]    http://www.iana.org/numbers.html

   [RFC1797] IANA, "Class A Subnet Experiment", RFC 1797, April 1995.

   [RFC1930] Hawkinson, J. and T. Bates,  "Guidelines for creation,
             selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)",
             RFC 1930, March 1996.

   [RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC
             2365, July 1998.

   [RFC2374] Hinden, R., O'Dell, M. and S. Deering, "An IPv6
             Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format", RFC 2374, July
             1998.

   [RFC2730] Hanna, S.,  Patel, B. and M. Shah, "Multicast Address
             Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC 2730,
             December 1999.

   [RFC2770] Meyer, D. and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", RFC
             2770, February 2000.

   [RFC2909] Radoslavov, P., Estrin, D., Govindan, R., Handley, M.,
             Kumar, S. and D. Thaler, "The Multicast Address-Set Claim
             (MASC) Protocol", RFC 2909, September 2000.

Meyer & Lothberg         Best Current Practice                  [Page 3]
RFC 3180                GLOP Addressing in 233/8          September 2001

   [RFC2974] Handley, M., Perkins, C. and E. Whelan, "Session
             Announcement Protocol", RFC 2974, October 2000.

   [RFC3138] Meyer, D., "Extended Assignments in 233/8", RFC 3138, June
             2001.

10. Authors' Addresses

   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

Meyer & Lothberg         Best Current Practice                  [Page 4]
RFC 3180                GLOP Addressing in 233/8          September 2001

11. 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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Meyer & Lothberg         Best Current Practice                  [Page 5]