draft-ietf-6man-multicast-scopes-07.txt   rfc7346.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force R. Droms Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Droms
Internet-Draft Cisco Request for Comments: 7346 Cisco
Updates: 4007, 4291 (if approved) June 12, 2014 Updates: 4007, 4291 August 2014
Intended status: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Expires: December 14, 2014 ISSN: 2070-1721
IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes
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 and
document updates RFC 4007 and RFC 4291 therefore updates RFCs 4007 and 4291.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 14, 2014. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7346.
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 2, line 19 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RFC 4291 [RFC4291] defines "scop is a 4-bit multicast scope value RFC 4291 [RFC4291] defines "scop" as "a 4-bit multicast scope value
used to limit the scope of the multicast group." scop 3 is defined as used to limit the scope of the multicast group" and defines "scop 3"
"reserved" in RFC 4291. The multicast protocol specification in as "reserved". The multicast protocol specification in [MPL] desires
draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast [I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast] desires to use multicast scop 3 to transport multicast traffic scoped to a
to use multicast scop 3 for transport of multicast traffic scoped to network of nodes connected in a mesh. This scop value is used to
a network of nodes connected in a mesh. The use of this scop value accommodate a multicast scope that is greater than Link-Local but is
is to accommodate a multicast scope that is greater than Link-Local 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 [RFC4291]:
+------+--------------------------+-------------------------+ +------+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| scop | NAME | REFERENCE | | scop | NAME | REFERENCE |
+------+--------------------------+-------------------------+ +------+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] | | 0 | Reserved | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
| 1 | Interface-Local | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] | | 1 | Interface-Local scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
| 2 | Link-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] | | 2 | Link-Local scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
| 3 | Realm-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] | | 3 | Realm-Local scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
| 4 | Admin-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] | | 4 | Admin-Local scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
| 5 | Site-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] | | 5 | Site-Local scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
| 6 | Unassigned | | | 6 | Unassigned | |
| 7 | Unassigned | | | 7 | Unassigned | |
| 8 | Organization-Local scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] | | 8 | Organization-Local scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
| 9 | Unassigned | | | 9 | Unassigned | |
| A | Unassigned | | | A | Unassigned | |
| B | Unassigned | | | B | Unassigned | |
| C | Unassigned | | | C | Unassigned | |
| D | Unassigned | | | D | Unassigned | |
| E | Global scope | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] | | E | Global scope | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
| F | Reserved | [RFC4291],[ RFC-to-be ] | | F | Reserved | [RFC4291], RFC 7346 |
+------+--------------------------+-------------------------+ +------+--------------------------+-------------------------+
The following change is applied to section 2.7 of RFC 4291: The following change is applied to Section 2.7 of [RFC4291].
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
from physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related physical connectivity or other, non-multicast-related
configuration. configuration.
NEW: NEW:
Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope Interface-Local, Link-Local, and Realm-Local scope boundaries are
boundaries are automatically derived from physical automatically derived from physical connectivity or other non-
connectivity or other, non-multicast related configuration. multicast-related configurations. Global scope has no boundary.
Global scope has no boundary. The boundaries of all other The boundaries of all other non-reserved scopes of Admin-Local or
non-reserved scopes of Admin-Local or larger are larger are administratively configured. For reserved scopes, the
administratively configured. For reserved scopes, the way way of configuring their boundaries will be defined when the
of configuring their boundaries will be defined when the semantics of the scope are 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
scope must fall within zones of larger scope. Because the must fall within zones of larger scope. Because the zone of a
zone of a Realm-Local scope is configured automatically, Realm-Local scope is configured automatically while the zones of
while the zones of larger scopes are configured manually, larger scopes are configured manually, care must be taken in the
care must be taken in the definition of those larger scopes definition of those larger scopes to ensure that the inclusion
to ensure that inclusion constraint is met. constraint is met.
Realm-Local scopes created by different network technologies Realm-Local scopes created by different network technologies are
are considered to be independent and will have different zone considered to be independent and will have different zone indices
indices (see RFC 4007, section 6). A router with interfaces (see Section 6 of [RFC4007]). A router with interfaces on links
on links using different network technologies does not forward using different network technologies does not forward traffic
traffic between the Realm-Local multicast scopes defined by between the Realm-Local multicast scopes defined by those
those technologies. 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, and those specifications must include such a Realm-Local scope entry, and those specifications must include such a
request in their IANA Considerations. request in their IANA Considerations.
Section 5 of this document gives the definition of scop 3 for IEEE Section 5 of this document gives the definition of scop 3 for IEEE
802.15.4 [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 [RFC4291]
about the way in which multicast scope 3 is configured. To resolve disagree on the way in which multicast scop 3 is configured. To
that disagreement, change the last bullet in the list in section 5 of resolve that disagreement, the last bullet in the list in Section 5
RFC 4007 as follows: of [RFC4007] is updated 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 [RFC-to-be]. addressing architecture [RFC4291] and updated by RFC 7346.
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 Personal Area Network Identifier
(PAN ID).
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to establish a sub-registry titled "IPv6 Multicast IANA has established a sub-registry titled "IPv6 Multicast Address
Address Scopes" in the existing "Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Scopes" in the existing "IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry". The
Multicast Address Allocations" registry. The new registry is to be new registry has been populated with the scop values given in
populated with the scope values given in Section 2. New definitions Section 2. New definitions for scop values will be made following
for scop values will be made with "IETF Review" policy. the "IETF Review" policy [RFC5226].
IANA is requested to add a reference to the Realm-Local scope entry For each future RFC that defines a Realm-Local scope for new network
(scop 3) in the "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" registry for each technologies (scop 3), IANA will add a reference to the defining
future RFC that defines a Realm-Local scope for new network document in the "IPv6 Multicast Address Scopes" registry. Such RFCs
technologies. Such RFCs are expected to make an explicit request to are expected to make an explicit request to IANA for inclusion in the
IANA for inclusion in the registry. registry.
IANA is requested to include a note to the top of the "IPv6 Multicast IANA has included a note on the top of the "IPv6 Multicast Address
Address Scopes" registry: 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-
'IPv6-over-foo' RFC. over-foo' RFC.
Any RFCs that define a Realm-Local scope will be listed in this Any RFCs that define a Realm-Local scope will be listed in this
registry as an additional reference in the Realm-Local scope registry as an additional reference in the Realm-Local scope
entry. Such RFCs are expected to make an explicit request to entry. Such RFCs are expected to make an explicit request to IANA
IANA for inclusion in this registry. 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
all contributed text and/or review to ensure that the updates to RFC Venaas all contributed text and/or review to ensure that the updates
4007 and RFC 4291 are correct. to RFC 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
[RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and [RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and
B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007, B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007,
March 2005. March 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-roll-trickle-mcast]
Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low power
and Lossy Networks (MPL)", draft-ietf-roll-trickle-
mcast-09 (work in progress), April 2014.
[IEEE802.15.4] [IEEE802.15.4]
IEEE Std 802.15.4-2006, "IEEE Standard for Information IEEE Computer Society, "IEEE Std. 802.15.4-2006", October
technology - Telecommunications and information exchange
between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks -
Specific requirements; Part 15.4: Wireless Medium Access
Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for
Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)", October
2006. 2006.
[MPL] Hui, J. and R. Kelsey, "Multicast Protocol for Low power
and Lossy Networks (MPL)", Work in Progress, April 2014.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
Author's Address Author's Address
Ralph Droms Ralph Droms
Cisco Cisco
1414 Massachusetts Avenue 1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719 Boxborough, MA 01719
USA USA
Phone: +1 978 936 1674 Phone: +1 978 936 1674
Email: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com EMail: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com
 End of changes. 33 change blocks. 
112 lines changed or deleted 104 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/