draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-06.txt   draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-07.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force R. Droms Internet Engineering Task Force R. Droms
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft Cisco
Updates: 4007, 4291 (if approved) June 3, 2014 Updates: 4007, 4291 (if approved) June 12, 2014
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: December 5, 2014 Expires: December 14, 2014
IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes
draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-06.txt draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-07.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 December 5, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 14, 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 | REFERENCE | | scop | NAME | REFERENCE |
+------+--------------------------+--------------------+ +------+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 0 | Reserved | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |
| 1 | Interface | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 1 | Interface-Local | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |
| 2 | Link-Local scope | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 2 | Link-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |
| 3 | Realm-Local scope | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 3 | Realm-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |
| 4 | Admin-Local scope | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 4 | Admin-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |
| 5 | Site-Local scope | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 5 | Site-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |
| 6 | Unassigned | | | 6 | Unassigned | |
| 7 | Unassigned | | | 7 | Unassigned | |
| 8 | Organization-Local scope | [ RFC-to-be ] | | 8 | Organization-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ 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 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | E | Global scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] |
| F | Reserved | [ RFC-to-be ] | | F | Reserved | [RFC4291],[ 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 28 skipping to change at page 4, line 28
non-reserved scopes of Admin-Local or larger are non-reserved scopes of Admin-Local or larger are
administratively configured. For reserved scopes, the way administratively configured. For reserved scopes, the way
of configuring their boundaries will be defined when the of configuring their boundaries will be defined when the
semantics of the scope is defined. semantics of the scope is defined.
According to RFC 4007 [RFC4007], the zone of a Realm-Local According to RFC 4007 [RFC4007], the zone of a Realm-Local
scope must fall within zones of larger scope. Because the scope must fall within zones of larger scope. Because the
zone of a Realm-Local scope is configured automatically, zone of a Realm-Local scope is configured automatically,
while the zones of larger scopes are configured manually, while the zones of larger scopes are configured manually,
care must be taken in the definition of those larger scopes care must be taken in the definition of those larger scopes
to ensure that inclusion contraint is met. to ensure that inclusion constraint is met.
Realm-Local scopes created by different network technologies
are considered to be independent and will have different zone
indices (see RFC 4007, section 6). A router with interfaces
on links using different network technologies does not forward
traffic between the Realm-Local multicast scopes defined by
those technologies.
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
added to the IANA 'IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes' registry under the added to the IANA 'IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes' registry under the
Realm-Local scope entry. Realm-Local scope entry, and those specifications must include such a
request in their IANA Considerations.
Section 5 gives the definition of scop 3 for IEEE 802.15.4 Section 5 of this document gives the definition of scop 3 for IEEE
[IEEE802.15.4] networks. 802.15.4 [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
RFC 4007 as follows: RFC 4007 as follows:
OLD: OLD:
o The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local, o The boundaries of zones of a scope other than interface-local,
link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network link-local, and global must be defined and configured by network
administrators. administrators.
NEW: NEW:
o The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6 o The boundaries of zones of a scope are defined by the IPv6
addressing architecture [RFC4291] and updated by this document. addressing architecture [RFC4291] and updated by [RFC-to-be].
5. Definition of Realm-Local Scope for IEEE 802.15.4 5. Definition of Realm-Local Scope for IEEE 802.15.4
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 requested 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. IANA will for scop values will be made with "IETF Review" policy.
add a note to the top of this registry:
IANA is requested to add a reference to the Realm-Local scope entry
(scop 3) in the "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" registry for each
future RFC that defines a Realm-Local scope for new network
technologies. Such RFCs are expected to make an explicit request to
IANA for inclusion in the registry.
IANA is requested to include a note to the top of the "IPv6 Multicast
Address Scopes" registry:
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 technology should be published in an RFC. For example, such a
scope definition would be appropriate for publication in an scope definition would be appropriate for publication in an
'IPv6- over-foo' RFC. 'IPv6-over-foo' RFC.
Any RFCs that include the definition of a Realm-Local scope will Any RFCs that define a Realm-Local scope will be listed in this
be listed in this registry." registry as an additional reference in the Realm-Local scope
entry. Such RFCs are expected to make an explicit request to
IANA for inclusion 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
[RFC4007] and RFC 4291 [RFC4291]. [RFC4007] and RFC 4291 [RFC4291].
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
skipping to change at page 6, line 43 skipping to change at page 7, line 20
Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for
Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)", October Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)", October
2006. 2006.
Author's Address Author's Address
Ralph Droms Ralph Droms
Cisco Cisco
1414 Massachusetts Avenue 1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719 Boxborough, MA 01719
US USA
Phone: +1 978 936 1674 Phone: +1 978 936 1674
Email: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Email: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com
 End of changes. 15 change blocks. 
37 lines changed or deleted 55 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/