Re: [MBONED] WGLC for <draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-04.txt>

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 03:36:04PM +0900, Hiroshi Ohta wrote:

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-04.txt

> This Last Call will end on January 11, 2008 at 1400 EST (UTC/GMT-4).  We
> set the WGLC period longer than usual considering we have holiday season
> during this WGLC period.

apologies for the late reply.  I have no strong preference one way or another,
but I think there's text in the document that could benefit from external
review from the RIR/LIR community maybe even prior to IETF Last Call.

>   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.

First, unicast addresses are distributed through the IANA->RIR[->NIR]->LIR
channel, so a particular /24 may end up being allocated (to an LIR)
but not assigned to a single end user.  Since address policies are
developed in the five RIR regions, is this something the bodies concerned
need to address?  Is the multicast group address for the LIR to
assign/distribute?

The term "owner of address space" is likely incompatible with current
assignment policy documents (at least for the RIPE region, it isn't used,
if not avoided).

Is there any intention to support DNS reverse mapping for the /8-to-be?
If the decision is up to the RIRs, the document might want to explicitly
defer this.

Since everybody "owns" 10/8 and the other RFC 1918 addresses, what happens
to these and all the other parts of the multicast /8, e.g. XX.127/16
and XX.224/12?

-Peter

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned