[ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal
Marshall Eubanks
tme at multicasttech.com
Mon Mar 5 05:18:23 EST 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments -not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal
- Next message: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dear Leo; On Mar 2, 2007, at 5:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:19:22PM -0500, > Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> I must admit that I do not understand this reasoning, and intend to >> petition / appeal this. >> >> RFC 2050 / BCP 12 merely says WRT multicast that > > I agree with you, to quote a little further: > > This document does not describe private Internet address space and > multicast address space. It also does not describe regional and > local refinements of the global rules and guidelines. > > This document can be considered the base set of operational > guidelines in use by all registries. Additional guidelines may be > imposed by a particular registry as appropriate. > > It would seem to me that 3180 could be interpreted as "Additional > guidelines" and thus I don't see a 2050 problem. > > I think the bigger problem here is, what is ARIN to do? Reading > 3180 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3180.html) there's no registry > function. You take a prefix, you add your AS number. Boom, done. > There's nothing for ARIN to allocate, track, report on or otherwise > administer. > > Since the purpose of a policy proposal is to change the NRPM, and > this references no sections of the NRPM, what specifcally do you > want ARIN to do? Perhaps if you rephrased in the form "Insert into > section x.y.z of the NRPM the following text:" it would be more > clear. > I think that you are correct, and such text is in the works. As far as what there is for a RIR to do, RFC 3180 is indeed automatic. RFC 3138, for GLOP extensions, says that (Section 3) Globally scoped IPv4 multicast addresses in the EGLOP space are assigned by a Regional Registry (RIR). An applicant MUST, as per [IANA], show that the request cannot be satisfied using Administratively Scoped addressing [RFC2365], GLOP addressing [RFC2770], or SSM. The fine-grained assignment policy is left to the assigning RIR. There thus needs to be established a mechanism for evaluating the "MUSTS" in this section, which should be pretty straightforward, and also for the granularity of assignments, for which we provided a specific suggestion in our proposal. Regards Marshall > -- > Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 > PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ > Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org > _______________________________________________ > PPML mailing list > PPML at arin.net > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
- Previous message: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments -not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal
- Next message: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments - not accepted by AC as formal policy proposal
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list