Re: [MBONED] Adoption of Multicast Filtering Practices draft

["Manfredi, Albert E" <[e-mail]>]

Perhaps a more accurate rule would be to say, "As a general principle, multicasts sent to 239.0.0.0/8 multicast groups from sources using private IP address ranges (RFC 1918) may be legitimate. However, multicasts sourced from private IP address ranges to other multicast group ranges, or multicasts from sources 169.254.0.0/16 or 127.0.0.0/8, should generally be dropped."

Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: Manfredi, Albert E 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 4:07 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [MBONED] Adoption of Multicast Filtering Practices draft

In general, I don't have any objections. But I did object to this:

   As a general principle, multicast sourced from private address ranges
   [RFC1918] or from 169.254.0.0/16, 192.0.2.0/24 or 127.0.0.0/8 should
   be dropped, regardless of the multicast destination.

It's the "from private address ranges" that bothers me. It is not so far-fetched that an organizational network would be using at least some RFC 1918 addresses, and that these would be legitimate sources of IP multicasts.

Especially these days, when public IPv4 addresses have essentially run out.

Bert 

On 8/12/2011 2:48 PM, Leonard Giuliano wrote:
>
> draft-chown-mboned-multicast-filtering was presented in MBONED in
> Quebec. There was solid interest in the room to adopt this draft
> (10-15 yea's, 0 nay's), so we are taking this to the list. Please
> respond here on the list if you are for or against adopting
> draft-chown-mboned-multicast-filtering as a working group item in MBONED.
>
> Draft can be found at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chown-mboned-multicast-filtering-01