Network Working Group
DaveD. Thaler Internet-Draft Microsoft Expires: April 2005 October 18, 2004September 5, 2007 March 4, 2007 Unicast-Prefix-based IPv4 Multicast Addresses <draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-02.txt>draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-03.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certifyeach author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I amhe or she is aware have been disclosed,or will be disclosed, and any of which I becomehe or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- DraftsInternet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txthttp://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.IETF Trust (2007). Abstract This specification defines an extension to the multicast addressing architecture of the IP Version 4 protocol. The extension presented in this document allows for unicast-prefix- basedunicast-prefix-based allocation of multicast addresses. By delegating multicast addresses at the same time as unicast prefixes, network operators will be able to identify their multicast addresses without needing to run an inter-domain allocation protocol. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Address Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. Introduction RFC 3180 [GLOP][RFC3180] defined an experimental allocation mechanism (called "GLOP") in 233/8 whereby an Autonomous System (AS) number is embedded in the middle 16 bits of an IPv4 multicast address, resulting in 256 multicast addresses per AS. Advantages of this mechanism include the ability to get multicast address space without an inter-domain multicast address allocation protocol, and the ease of determining the AS of the owner of an address for debugging and auditing purposes. Some disadvantages of GLOP include: o there is work in progress [AS4B] on expanding the size of an AS number to 4 bytes, and GLOP cannot work with such AS's. o when an AS covers multiple sites or organizations, administration of the multicast address space within an AS must be handled by other mechanisms, such as manual administrative effort or MADCAP [MADCAP].[RFC2730]. o during debugging, identifying the AS does not immediately identify the owning organization, when an AS covers multiple organizations. o only 256 addresses are automatically available per AS, and obtaining any more requires administrative effort. More recently, a mechanism [V6UPBM][RFC3306] has been developed for IPv6 which provides a multicast range to every IPv6 subnet, which is at a much finer granularity than an AS. As a result, the first three disadvantages above are avoided (and the last disadvantage does not apply to IPv6 due to the extended size of the address space). Another advantage of providing multicast space to every subnet (rather than just to an entire AS) is that multicast address allocation within the range need only be coordinated within the subnet. This draft specifies a mechanism similar to [V6UPBM],[RFC3306], whereby a range of IPv4 multicast address space is provided to most IPv4 subnets. A resulting advantage over GLOP is that the mechanisms in IPv4 and IPv6 become more similar. This document proposes an experimental method of statically allocating multicast addresses with global scope. As described in section Section 4, this experiment will last for a period of one year, but may be extended. 2. Address Space (RFC-editor: replace TBD below with IANA-assigned value, and delete this note.) A multicast address with the prefix TBD/8 indicates that the address is a Unicast-Based Multicast (UBM) address. The remaining 24 bits can be used as follows: Bits: | 8 | Unicast Prefix Length | 24 - Unicast Prefix Length | +-----+-----------------------+----------------------------+ Value: | TBD | Unicast Prefix | Group ID | +-----+-----------------------+----------------------------+ For subnets with a /24 or shorter prefix, the unicast prefix of the subnet is appended to the common /8. Any remaining bits may be locally assigned by hosts within the link (e.g., using manual configuration). Individual subnets with a prefix length longer than 24 do not receive any multicast address space from this mechanism; in such cases, MADCAP mayanother mechanism must be used. Compared to GLOP, an AS will receive more address space via this mechanism if it has more than a /16 for unicast space. An AS will receive less address space than it does from GLOP if it has less than a /16. The owner of a UBM address can be determined by taking the multicast address, shifting it left by 8 bits, and identifying the owner of the address space covering the resulting unicast address. 3. Security Considerations The same well known intra-domain security techniques can be applied as with GLOP. Furthermore, when dynamic allocation is used within a prefix, the approach described here may have the effect of reduced exposure to denial of space attacks, since the topological area within which nodes compete for addresses within the same prefix is reduced from an entire AS to only within an individual subnet. 4. IANA Considerations IANA should assign a /8 in the IPv4 multicast address space for this purpose. This assignment should timeout one year after the assignment is made. The assignment may be renewed at that time. 5. Author's Address Dave Thaler Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052-6399 Phone: +1 425 703 8835 EMail: email@example.com 6.Informative References [AS4B] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP supportSupport for four-octetFour-octet AS number space", draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-08.txt, Work in progress, March 2004. [GLOP] Meyer, D. and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", RFC 3180, September 2001. [MADCAP]Number Space", February 2007, <http://www.ietf.org/ internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-13.txt>. [RFC2730] Hanna, S,S., Patel, B.B., and M. Shah, "Multicast Address Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC 2730, December 1999. [V6UPBM][RFC3180] Meyer, D. and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", BCP 53, RFC 3180, September 2001. [RFC3306] Haberman, B. and D. Thaler, "Unicast-Prefix-based IPv6 Multicast Addresses", RFC 3306, August 2002. 7.Author's Address Dave Thaler Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 USA Phone: +1 425 703 8835 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETYSOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. 8.Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at email@example.com. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).