Re: [pim] IPv6 Inter-domain Multicasting and Address Assignments
Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Fri, 23 February 2007 00:23 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKODZ-0005W7-EA; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:23:21 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKODY-0005Vf-95; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:23:20 -0500
Received: from [2001:630:d0:f102:230:48ff:fe77:96e] (helo=owl.ecs.soton.ac.uk) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HKO9x-0007DR-Hi; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:19:40 -0500
Received: from goose.ecs.soton.ac.uk (goose.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.68.131]) by owl.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l1N0IuRr018084; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:18:56 GMT
Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (login.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102:230:48ff:fe23:58df]) by goose.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l1N0IZlj013442; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:18:36 GMT
Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.12.11.20060308/8.11.6) id l1N0IYkb005123; Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:18:34 GMT
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:18:34 +0000
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: "Gibbons, James" <James.Gibbons@si-intl.com>
Subject: Re: [pim] IPv6 Inter-domain Multicasting and Address Assignments
Message-ID: <20070223001834.GA32766@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <2A89D6B6FFB96046BE70561B718593F602ED6C59@va03ex01.si.siroot.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2A89D6B6FFB96046BE70561B718593F602ED6C59@va03ex01.si.siroot.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Null-Tag: b59c85c115bd3bae90c1f7b05e16eede
X-Null-Tag: 021cb8294c064562fa1f31c66bbef2be
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-Spam-Status: No
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248
Cc: magma@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pim-bounces@ietf.org
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 > 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. > 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). And with a lot of /64's in an IPv6 site, you can (as we have) assign an 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. -- Tim _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
- [pim] IPv6 Inter-domain Multicasting and Address … Gibbons, James
- Re: [pim] IPv6 Inter-domain Multicasting and Addr… Tim Chown