Re: [MBONED] addrarch: IANA allocations and assignments

David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net> Wed, 20 December 2006 15:53 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gx3l8-0006Wb-0l; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:53:34 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gx3l7-0006W6-G6 for mboned@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:53:33 -0500
Received: from m106.maoz.com ([205.167.76.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gx3l3-0000nc-WD for mboned@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:53:33 -0500
Received: from m106.maoz.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by m106.maoz.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBKFrTUE004487; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:53:29 -0800
Received: (from dmm@localhost) by m106.maoz.com (8.13.8/8.12.11/Submit) id kBKFrTSw004486; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:53:29 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: m106.maoz.com: dmm set sender to dmm@1-4-5.net using -f
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:53:29 -0800
From: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
To: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] addrarch: IANA allocations and assignments
Message-ID: <20061220155329.GA4441@1-4-5.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612201329120.22781@netcore.fi> <20061220153322.GA2160@1-4-5.net> <F9078A40-6E1C-4179-8167-C165B1F90011@multicasttech.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F9078A40-6E1C-4179-8167-C165B1F90011@multicasttech.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-public-key: http://www.1-4-5.net/~dmm/public-key.asc
X-gpg-fingerprint: 2409 8B50 B389 A307 BA5C 2A16 3918 03D6 A099 D8A7
X-philosophy: "I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader, Star Wars Episode IV.
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003
Cc: mboned@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0391337217=="
Errors-To: mboned-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 10:42:45AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> Hello;
> 
> On Dec 20, 2006, at 10:33 AM, David Meyer wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 01:30:47PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >>AD review: IANA allocations and assignments
> >>
> >>1) The draft says that IANA should not make direct multicast address
> >>   space allocations (big chunks) to operators and even direct
> >>   assignments (e.g., applications) seem like land-grabbing.
> >>   Justification for this recommendation did not seem to be suitably
> >>   well established, and this seems just discussion, given that we
> >>   presently do not make instructions for IANA (see issue 3).  Issues
> >>   in particular:
> >>
> >>  1.1) What is the IPv4 multicast allocation approach for
> >>   those networks which will only have 4-byte AS numbers?
> >>   (Expected to happen in a couple of years.) GLOP is no
> >>   longer applicable.
> >>
> >>   Possibilities include:
> >>    - IANA handing out static allocations (again, strongly
> >>      discouraged in Section 2.3),
> >
> >	This is the current world, however.
> >
> >>    - IPv4 unicast-prefix -based allocation could be marketed
> >>      as a potential solution in this space (would we need to revive
> >>      this or is the option of reviving it in the future if there is
> >>      interest good enough?),
> >
> >	What was this?
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-ipv4-uni-based-mcast-02

	Ah, thnx. For some reason that completely slipped (what's
	left of) my mind :-)

> 
> >
> >>    - no approach seems to be needed for this (given SSM and v6  
> >>methods),
> >
> >	That would, however, seem to be wrong, given the real
> >	world. SSM deployment seems to be stalled (and "my DSLAM
> >	doesn't do IGMPv3" [or whatever]), and IPv6 multicast,
> >	well, nuff said.
> >
> 
> Indeed. Most (effectively all) of the iron and silicon that is going  
> into IPTV deployments
> is IPv4 and ASM, and doesn't support IGMPv3
> 
> >	So academic exercises aside, what people want are global
> >	scope IPv4 multicast addresses for various things, not
> >	the least (and not the most) of which is to hard-code to
> >	their application for resource discovery purposes.  And
> >	we have no strategy other than to have the IANA expert
> >	look at the application and say "yes" or "no" (with very
> >	little to base those decisions on).
> >
> >>    - something else?
> >
> >	Like what?
> >
> >>  1.2) No evidence is presented that "land-grabbing" multicast  
> >>assignments
> >>   has been a problem.  It's true that there is still a lot of space
> >>   in the "AD-HOC Block" (224.0.2.0 - 224.0.255.0).  Internetwork
> >>   control block is almost full though, and should probably not be
> >>   expanded too much.
> >
> >	Not so if you believe that the IPv4 multicast address
> >	space is relatively small. The IANA also has a
> >	stewardship role here that we shouldn't forget/overlook.
> >
> >>   Is there something we should do here, e.g., make Internetwork
> >>   control and local network blocks (224.0.1.0/24 and 224.0.0.0/24
> >>   respectively) more difficult to get, tone down the AD-HOC block
> >>   language, or what?
> >
> >	How exactly do you do that? I'll just note that to some
> >	extent it really doesn't matter what's in these
> >	documents.  People come to the IANA with their requests
> >	that essentially say "No, I can't use any of these
> >	techniques. Please give me 255 globally scoped multicast
> >	addresses." (or whatever the number is).
> >
> >	The point of 3171 was to provide some help to the IANA
> >	when assigning multicast addresses. It really hasn't been
> >	effective. To be honest, I have denied very few
> >	applications precisely because there was really no
> >	grounds on which to do so, notwithstanding all of the
> >	above. Basically, people want their own multicast
> >	address(es), even if in many (or even most) cases they
> >	don't know what that really means. That is just the
> >	nature of this game.
> >
> 
> Is there a public list of these ?

	http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses

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