[MBONED] Fwd: [pim] IPv6 Inter-domain Multicasting and Address Assignments
Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> Fri, 23 February 2007 02:36 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKQIb-0000gn-Js; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:36:41 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKQIa-0000aO-C6 for mboned@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:36:40 -0500
Received: from lennon.multicasttech.com ([63.105.122.7] helo=multicasttech.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKQIW-0007EP-VN for mboned@ietf.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:36:40 -0500
Received: from [63.105.122.7] (account marshall_eubanks HELO [IPv6:::1]) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 6232947; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:36:34 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
References: <dcad22d80702221736g4ebfd7e7sc6c9be6fb6a7dd81@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <D11D9EC6-B659-48D2-926E-BFC4BE80816A@multicasttech.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:36:32 -0500
To: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 995b2e24d23b953c94bac5288c432399
Cc: "Gibbons, James" <James.Gibbons@si-intl.com>
Subject: [MBONED] Fwd: [pim] IPv6 Inter-domain Multicasting and Address Assignments
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>
Errors-To: mboned-bounces@ietf.org
For the group's information. Marshall Begin forwarded message: > From: "Marshall Eubanks" <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com> > Date: February 22, 2007 8:36:39 PM EST > To: "Tim Chown" <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> > Cc: "Gibbons, James" <James.Gibbons@si-intl.com>, magma@ietf.org, > tme@multicasttech.com > Subject: Re: [pim] IPv6 Inter-domain Multicasting and Address > Assignments > > Hello; > > In my opinion, this should be done on Mboned, and certainly not on > PIM. However, here is my take in this. > > > On 2/22/07, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 03:41:33PM -0500, Gibbons, James wrote: >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > >> > SI International represents and contracts with DITO >> (DoD IPv6 >> > Transition Office) on a number of IPv6 issues. In this >> case we are >> > providing DITO with a white paper on IPv6 Inter-domain >> multicast >> > address assignments and issues/problems (expected or >> realized) >> > regarding IPv6 multicast implementations. >> > >> > To begin, I have gone over a number of RFCs (including RFC >> 3306, 3956, >> > 3307, 2375, 4607, ID draft-ietf-mboned-ipv6-multicast- >> issues-02.txt >> > among others) but they are vague as to actual working >> implementation >> > of inter-domain multicast address assignments and how >> they will or >> > might work proceed. >> >> RFC3306 lets you create for yourself a globally unique multicast >> group >> address where your unicast prefix (which is unique by allocation) >> contributes >> towards the first 96 bits of the group address. >> >> The missing bit is how you manage the last 32 bits, but that could be >> application determined if for example you used a /64 per application. >> Or you can choose your own manually. >> >> > In IPv4 GLOP was developed but not widely used, where an >> organizations > > I disagree with this. Except for going to IANA - or making it up - > this is the > only thing that is used in IPv4. > > Also, you might be interested that we are working on instantiating > eGLOP - see > > http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/prop-047-v001.html - > > similar proposals have been sent to RIPE and ARIN. > >> > ASN is embedded in the 223.0.0.0 / 8 multicast range. In >> IPv6 I have >> > seen V6UPBM (RFC 3306) and "Embedded RP" (RFC 3956) >> as similar >> > proposals for IPv6. >> >> Yep. >> >> > However, I am still not clear of the "reality" of IPv6 >> multicast >> > address assignments especially with regards to globally >> unique (by >> > organization, domain, site, etc.) inter-domain multicast. >> >> We're using RFC3306 and Embedded-RP group addresses for international >> IPv6 multicast applications. > > This has been used since at least early 2003; it was first presented > at the Summer 2003 > IETF in Vienna - see > > http://www.6net.org/events/workshop-2004/durand.pdf > >> >> > That is, how far have actual address assignments proceeded? >> >> For 3306 you don't need an authority to hand it out, it's just >> there for >> you to use implicitly by the format. >> >> > What is just proposed versus being implemented or to be >> implemented? >> > >> > Are there actual standards being followed? >> >> A growing base of routers support Embedded RP... we've run that >> between >> the UK and US academic networks; all router son path (mainly Cisco >> and >> Juniper) support it. No RP required :) >> >> > Are there known/expected issues/problems with IPv6 >> inter-domain >> > multicast and address assignments? >> > >> > Maybe a quote from my actual assignment will further clarify >> what I am >> > looking for: >> > >> > "DITO is having some concerns with IPv6 multicast address >> space and >> > how it should or should not be provisioned. You should >> start the >> > study with regards to how IPv4 multicast addressing >> worked in the >> > past. If you ever worked with it you would know there >> was never >> > official group reservations made with regards to >> address blocks. >> > However, this was never a real issue since its popularity >> died. So >> > except for what was deemed to be the well-known addresses >> there was >> > never any reservations, unlike how unicast is reserved. >> One thought >> > might be the Army gets a block of addresses, Navy, and so on." >> >> A big win for v6 is that you dont need an ASN for GLOP like v4, >> you can >> just form multicast groups from your unicast allocated prefix(es). >> > > Note that there has been a big discussion about assignment of IPv6 > addresses - see > > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html > >> And with a lot of /64's in an IPv6 site, you can (as we have) >> assign an > > Most assignments are /48s > >> RFC3306 group range per application if you chose to do so. >> >> The other nice thing about v6 multicast is the explicit scoping >> bits, which >> make it easier to control where your traffic flows. >> > > Yes. I expect more in the future here. > >> -- >> Tim > > Regards > Marshall > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pim mailing list >> pim@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim >> _______________________________________________ MBONED mailing list MBONED@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
- [MBONED] Fwd: [pim] IPv6 Inter-domain Multicastin… Marshall Eubanks
- [MBONED] Fwd: [pim] IPv6 Inter-domain Multicastin… Marshall Eubanks