draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-05.txt   draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-06.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force R. Droms Internet Engineering Task Force R. Droms
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft Cisco
Updates: 4007, 4291 (if approved) May 16, 2014 Updates: 4007, 4291 (if approved) June 3, 2014
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: November 17, 2014 Expires: December 5, 2014
IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes
draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-05.txt draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-06.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes. This This document updates the definitions of IPv6 multicast scopes. This
document updates RFC 4007 and RFC 4291 document updates RFC 4007 and RFC 4291
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 32 skipping to change at page 1, line 32
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 17, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] desires draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] desires
to use multicast scop 3 for transport of multicast traffic scoped to to use multicast scop 3 for transport of multicast traffic scoped to
a network of nodes connected in a mesh. The use of this scop value a network of nodes connected in a mesh. The use of this scop value
is to accommodate a multicast scope that is greater than Link-Local is to accommodate a multicast scope that is greater than Link-Local
but is also automatically determined by the network architecture. but is also automatically determined by the network architecture.
2. Definition of IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes (Updates RFC 4291) 2. Definition of IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes (Updates RFC 4291)
The following table updates the definitions in RFC 4291: The following table updates the definitions in RFC 4291:
+------+--------------------------+ +------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| scop | NAME | | scop | NAME | REFERENCE |
+------+--------------------------+ +------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| 0 | reserved | | 0 | Reserved | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1 | Interface | | 1 | Interface | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2 | Link-Local scope | | 2 | Link-Local scope | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3 | Realm-Local scope | | 3 | Realm-Local scope | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4 | Admin-Local scope | | 4 | Admin-Local scope | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 5 | Site-Local scope | | 5 | Site-Local scope | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 6 | (unassigned) | | 6 | Unassigned | |
| 7 | (unassigned) | | 7 | Unassigned | |
| 8 | Organization-Local scope | | 8 | Organization-Local scope | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| 9 | (unassigned) | | 9 | Unassigned | |
| A | (unassigned) | | A | Unassigned | |
| B | (unassigned) | | B | Unassigned | |
| C | (unassigned) | | C | Unassigned | |
| D | (unassigned) | | D | Unassigned | |
| E | Global scope | | E | Global scope | [ RFC-to-be ] |
| F | reserved | | F | Reserved | [ RFC-to-be ] |
+------+--------------------------+ +------+--------------------------+--------------------+
The following change is applied to section 2.7 of RFC 4291: The following change is applied to section 2.7 of RFC 4291:
OLD: OLD:
Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be Admin-Local scope is the smallest scope that must be
administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived
from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
configuration. configuration.
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
to ensure that inclusion contraint is met. to ensure that inclusion contraint is met.
3. Definition of Realm-Local scopes 3. Definition of Realm-Local scopes
The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network
technology should be published in an RFC. For example, such a scope technology should be published in an RFC. For example, such a scope
definition would be appropriate for publication in an "IPv6-over-foo" definition would be appropriate for publication in an "IPv6-over-foo"
RFC. RFC.
Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will be Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will be
listed in the IANA "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" registry. added to the IANA 'IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes' registry under the
Realm-Local scope entry.
Section 5 gives the definition of scop 3 for IEEE 802.15.4 Section 5 gives the definition of scop 3 for IEEE 802.15.4
[IEEE802.15.4] networks. [IEEE802.15.4] networks.
4. Definition of automatic and administratively configured scopes 4. Definition of automatic and administratively configured scopes
(updates RFC 4007) (updates RFC 4007)
Section 5 of RFC 4007 [RFC4007] and section 2.7 of RFC 4291 disagree Section 5 of RFC 4007 [RFC4007] and section 2.7 of RFC 4291 disagree
about the way in which multicast scope 3 is configured. To resolve about the way in which multicast scope 3 is configured. To resolve
that disagreement, change the last bullet in the list in section 5 of that disagreement, change the last bullet in the list in section 5 of
skipping to change at page 5, line 27 skipping to change at page 5, line 27
When used in an IP-over-IEEE802.15.4 network, "scop 3" is defined to When used in an IP-over-IEEE802.15.4 network, "scop 3" is defined to
include all interfaces sharing a PAN ID. include all interfaces sharing a PAN ID.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to establish a sub-registry titled "IPv6 Multicast IANA is asked to establish a sub-registry titled "IPv6 Multicast
Address Scopes" in the existing "Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Address Scopes" in the existing "Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)
Multicast Address Allocations" registry. The new registry is to be Multicast Address Allocations" registry. The new registry is to be
populated with the scope values given in Section 2. New definitions populated with the scope values given in Section 2. New definitions
for scop values will be made with "IETF Review" policy. The registry for scop values will be made with "IETF Review" policy. IANA will
will have a note associated with scope 3 listing all RFCs that define add a note to the top of this registry:
Realm-Local scoping rules that use scope 3.
The definition of any Realm-Local scope for a particular network
technology should be published in an RFC. For example, such a
scope definition would be appropriate for publication in an
'IPv6- over-foo' RFC.
Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will
be listed in this registry."
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
Robert Cragie, Kerry Lynn, Jinmei Tatuya, Dave Thaler and Stig Venaas Robert Cragie, Kerry Lynn, Jinmei Tatuya, Dave Thaler and Stig Venaas
all contributed text and/or review to ensure that the updates to RFC all contributed text and/or review to ensure that the updates to RFC
4007 and RFC 4291 are correct 4007 and RFC 4291 are correct
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document has no security considerations beyond those in RFC 4007 This document has no security considerations beyond those in RFC 4007
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
28 lines changed or deleted 36 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/