IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MBONED] [Ext] Re: ipv4 multicast address ranges, actual usage.

Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> Thu, 19 December 2019 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA906120853 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:29:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UdIECnndqSVl for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:29:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D828712011B for <mboned@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:29:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PFE112-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with ESMTPS id xBJHTOeV024899 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:29:24 GMT
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:29:22 -0800
Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.000; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:29:22 -0800
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, Leonard Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net>
CC: "mboned@ietf.org" <mboned@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] Re: [MBONED] ipv4 multicast address ranges, actual usage.
Thread-Index: AQHVtfZZyiO2saLeJ0uigZnIvFBII6fBCdAAgAACooCAAKtVAA==
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:29:22 +0000
Message-ID: <BBDA65F0-6D36-443F-8370-62F144139087@icann.org>
References: <CAA93jw6Wy=+cc1kHNm97SMjYW31KNhaEM4KXZo=nFcCkG9UjCQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1912181240340.5406@contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net> <CAA93jw7MtXtHVxGnJnZTovSi+o8rtssf2f0uKn-7YNn+YgUg6Q@mail.gmail.com> <5E817666-6988-4A68-8125-F3D3BDB24861@akamai.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1912181500530.27773@contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net> <CAA93jw6_dSfYZCoGURSqkfdFvdgA+Rxgu63Wdu=73xSsTThuHQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw6_dSfYZCoGURSqkfdFvdgA+Rxgu63Wdu=73xSsTThuHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.20.0.191208
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [192.0.32.236]
x-source-routing-agent: Processed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <D29A11F4E8168E49A7C5DF396EF1C0D3@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-12-19_04:, , signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/-8Ye5JZLk7BQgB1900rnLwDny7Y>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] [Ext] Re: ipv4 multicast address ranges, actual usage.
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mboned/>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:29:29 -0000

On 12/18/19, 3:16 PM, "MBONED on behalf of Dave Taht" <mboned-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> Do you think anybody would notice if 225/8 - 231/8 became unicast? We
> have scanned the source code of the world and come up empty here.

I think the amount of attention required would vary depending on the defined scope. If you want to expand the RFC 1918 address space, most networks can ignore the change unless they want to add support in their own administrative domain (unless you leak). If you want to change them into Global Unicast addresses then multiple, independent network operators need to agree to deploy new code in operational support systems as well as network elements.

I should note that redesignation for 1/8, 233/8, and 240/4 has been proposed before:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hain-1918bis-01
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02

While those are not multicast address blocks, I think that the likely challenges are sufficiently similar to make it worth speaking with the authors of those drafts to understand why their proposals did not result in changes.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email