As per Relevance of the word described, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group D.
Request for Comments: 2770 Cisco
Category: Experimental P.
February 2000
GLOP Addressing in 233/8
Status of this
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested
Distribution of this memo is unlimited
Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved
This describes an experimental policy for use of the class D
space using 233/8 as the experimental statically assigned subset
the class D address space. This new experimental allocation is
addition to those described on [IANA] (e.g. [RFC2365]).
This memo is a product of the Multicast Deployment Working
(MBONED) in the Operations and Management Area of the
Engineering Task Force. Submit comments to
the authors
1. Problem
Multicast addresses have traditionally been allocated by a
mechanism such as SDR [SAP]. However, many current
deployment models are not amenable to dynamic allocation.
example, many content aggregators require group addresses which
fixed on a time scale which is not amenable to allocation by
mechanism such as described in [SAP]. Perhaps more seriously,
there isn't general consensus by providers, content aggregators,
application writers as to the allocation mechanism, the Internet
left without a coherent multicast address allocation scheme
Meyer & Lothberg Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 2770 GLOP Addressing in 233/8 February 2000
The MALLOC working group is looking at a specific strategy for
multicast address allocation [MADCAP, MASC]. This experiment
proceed in parallel. MADCAP may be employed within AS's, if
desired
This document proposes an experimental method of
allocating multicast addresses with global scope. This
will last for a period of one year, but may be extended as
in section 6.
2. Address
For purposes of the experiment described here, the IANA has
233/8. The remaining 24 bits will be administered in a manner
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2.1.
Consider, for example, AS 5662. Written in binary, left padded
0s, we get 0001011000011110. Mapping the high order octet to
second octet of the address, and the low order octet to the
octet, we get 233.22.30/24.
3.
As mentioned above, the allocation proposed here follows the RFC 1797
(case 1) allocation scheme, modified as follows: the high order
has the value 233, and the next 16 bits are a previously
Autonomous System number (AS), as registered by a network
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
the experiment to get underway quickly in that it
allocates some addresses to each service provider and does
require a registration step
3.1. Private AS
The address space mapped to the private AS space [RFC1930]
reserved for future allocation
Meyer & Lothberg Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 2770 GLOP Addressing in 233/8 February 2000
4. Transition from GLOP to Other Address Allocation
It may not be necessary to transition from the address
scheme described here to a more dynamic approach (see, e.g., [MASC]).
The reasoning here is that the statically assigned addresses
from 233/8 may be sufficient for those applications which must
static addressing, and any other addressing can come from either
dynamic mechanism such as [MASC], the administratively scoped
space [RFC2365], or the Single-source address space [SS].
5. Security
The approach described here may have the effect of reduced
to denial of space attacks based on dynamic allocation. Further
since dynamic assignment does not cross domain boundaries, well
intra-domain security techniques can be applied
6. IANA
IANA has allocated 233/8 for experimental assignments.
assignment should timeout one year after the assignment is made.
assignment may be renewed at that time. It should be noted that
experiment described here is in the same spirit the
described in [RFC1797].
7.
This idea originated with Peter Lothberg's idea that we use the
allocation (AS based) as described in RFC 1797 in the class D
space. Randy Bush and Mark Handley contributed many
comments
8.
[RFC2730] Hanna, S., Patel, B. and M. Shah, "Multicast
Dynamic Client Allocation Protocol (MADCAP)", RFC 2730,
December 1999.
[MASC] D. Estrin, et al., "The Multicast Address-Set Claim (MASC
Protocol", Work in Progress
[MSDP] D. Farinacci et al., "Multicast Source Discovery
(MSDP)", Work in Progress
[IANA] www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/multicast-
Meyer & Lothberg Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 2770 GLOP Addressing in 233/8 February 2000
[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",
2365, July 1998.
[RFC2374] Hinden, R., O'Dell, M. and S. Deering, "An IPv
Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format", RFC 2374,
1998.
[SAP] Handley, M., "SAP: Session Announcement Protocol", Work
Progress
[SS] www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/single-source
9. Authors'
David
Cisco Systems, Inc
170 W. Tasman
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
United
EMail: dmm@cisco.
Peter
VARESA0104
12502 Sunrise Valley
Reston VA, 20196
EMail: roll@sprint.
Meyer & Lothberg Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 2770 GLOP Addressing in 233/8 February 2000
10. Full Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
included on all such copies and derivative works. However,
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other
English
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by
Internet Society
Meyer & Lothberg Experimental [Page 5]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
