IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Thu, 19 December 2019 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
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 1B402120D73 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:52:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.com
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 AUBhZD26PBX0 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:52:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (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 7489C120D71 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:52:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id xBJJpsUl026173; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:52:01 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1576785121; bh=uMsTT9uhKP0hcJdPM+eZBNgmmXnoYQR/a2i4tXZTJF0=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=sYBBjRyEojBLZBgWEav/oR+utvbiV91MiTxUNMBYN5Lz+UWeZPO57gzcBmSbMnbEz ElDA3nDfn6m6FmQQASYE6yVYB52GnAPsYIlwD7REHIN5yRrVvYXVPgg5o4mx+fOLf0 M0uzt2XENR+72g5ZnzZqOpdn+5ZhV1W9YBJWuur68VX20r9SzElADIJBqOCkEep0E4 ihiu5QacOU24AyPKryVS82uxWX/s8T5dp2FCPFaqadQwoeaqsj3XTbHJhc3azDsV4B KzZtED8sbmO/xNzpGdcRH/q2nTwXhnFRJBJ8Mcps6fNGcGyOkOHnAfCXF3TyHkLmoI o77wLgJfojVrQ==
Received: from XCH16-01-10.nos.boeing.com (xch16-01-10.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.5]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id xBJJpb2r023638 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:51:37 -0500
Received: from XCH16-01-11.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.39) by XCH16-01-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1779.2; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:51:35 -0800
Received: from XCH16-01-11.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::a96c:5d85:1337:4323]) by XCH16-01-11.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::a96c:5d85:1337:4323%4]) with mapi id 15.01.1779.002; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:51:35 -0800
From: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
CC: "mboned@ietf.org" <mboned@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MBONED] [Ext] Re: ipv4 multicast address ranges, actual usage.
Thread-Index: AQHVtfZZyiO2saLeJ0uigZnIvFBII6fBCdAAgAACooCAAKtVAIAAic2A//+cJtA=
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 19:51:35 +0000
Message-ID: <0c2f76b5431f42f1b9144be1cbc17caa@boeing.com>
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> <BBDA65F0-6D36-443F-8370-62F144139087@icann.org> <CAA93jw6-BJh-GKEHALN+SiKtrroJzNPgodKawevN3puK0BkBJQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw6-BJh-GKEHALN+SiKtrroJzNPgodKawevN3puK0BkBJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [144.115.204.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 0BB35C417A487D0A5EBC0590EFC8F6090477462094AE9B9994D7C2BCB588A1792000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mboned/UoC3QGC2w9hGl7_--L2f2ZGyRB0>
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 19:52:06 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: MBONED <mboned-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dave Taht

> I would love to collect more feedback and bug reports regarding that
before we finally gird ourselves up for the ietf gauntlet. As things
stand today, although I'd really like as much feedback as possible, I
do not see a problem (over a 10 year timespan) with turning
225/8-231/8 into unicast.

I think this is a bad idea. It would be okay to turn those multicast blocks into private multicast blocks, like 239/8, but to make them unicast blocks is asking for trouble. And probing the Internet, and finding that they "aren’t used," won’t explain why.

The fact is, whether done legally or not, networks do use 224/8 and 230/8, and likely others in that range, for internal IP multicast use, today. People don’t seem to obsess about RFC 2365 and 5771 sufficiently, it seems.

So, if we think that reclaiming some of those address blocks is a good idea, then I'd say, only if the reclaimed blocks are also used for multicast!

Bert

v2.45.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status