Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: NANOG: users

mulcast assignments

 

 

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


source_route at yahoo

May 3, 2012, 12:24 PM

Post #1 of 15 (851 views)
Permalink
mulcast assignments

How do I get a registered multicast block?


gjshep at gmail

May 3, 2012, 12:35 PM

Post #2 of 15 (832 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

Why do you think you need an assigned mcast block? All inter domain
mcast uses source trees only, so just use SSM and you don't need
address assignments.

Greg

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Philip Lavine <source_route [at] yahoo> wrote:
> How do I get a registered multicast block?
>


quentin.carpent at vtx-telecom

May 3, 2012, 12:53 PM

Post #3 of 15 (835 views)
Permalink
RE: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

You can also use the glop IP addressing:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3180

Quentin

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep [at] gmail]
Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 9:35 PM
To: Philip Lavine
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: mulcast assignments

Why do you think you need an assigned mcast block? All inter domain
mcast uses source trees only, so just use SSM and you don't need
address assignments.

Greg

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Philip Lavine <source_route [at] yahoo> wrote:
> How do I get a registered multicast block?
>


gjshep at gmail

May 3, 2012, 1:00 PM

Post #4 of 15 (834 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for
the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a
/24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast
address you have along with vastly superior security and network
simplicity.

Greg

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Quentin Carpent
<quentin.carpent [at] vtx-telecom> wrote:
> You can also use the glop IP addressing:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3180
>
> Quentin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep [at] gmail]
> Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 9:35 PM
> To: Philip Lavine
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: mulcast assignments
>
> Why do you think you need an assigned mcast block? All inter domain
> mcast uses source trees only, so just use SSM and you don't need
> address assignments.
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Philip Lavine <source_route [at] yahoo> wrote:
>> How do I get a registered multicast block?
>>
>
>


owen at delong

May 3, 2012, 1:19 PM

Post #5 of 15 (836 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

Simpler solution... Just set the P flag and use your unicast prefix as part of the group ID.

For example, if your unicast prefix is 2001:db8:f00d::/48, you could use:

ff4e:2001:db8:f00d::<group number>

Where <group number> is any number of your choosing up to 64 bits, but recommended
to be ≤32 bits.

Make sense?

Owen

On May 3, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote:

> Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for
> the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a
> /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast
> address you have along with vastly superior security and network
> simplicity.
>
> Greg
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Quentin Carpent
> <quentin.carpent [at] vtx-telecom> wrote:
>> You can also use the glop IP addressing:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3180
>>
>> Quentin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep [at] gmail]
>> Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 9:35 PM
>> To: Philip Lavine
>> Cc: NANOG list
>> Subject: Re: mulcast assignments
>>
>> Why do you think you need an assigned mcast block? All inter domain
>> mcast uses source trees only, so just use SSM and you don't need
>> address assignments.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Philip Lavine <source_route [at] yahoo> wrote:
>>> How do I get a registered multicast block?
>>>
>>
>>


gjshep at gmail

May 3, 2012, 1:38 PM

Post #6 of 15 (833 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Owen DeLong <owen [at] delong> wrote:
> Simpler solution... Just set the P flag and use your unicast prefix as part of the group ID.
>
> For example, if your unicast prefix is 2001:db8:f00d::/48, you could use:
>
> ff4e:2001:db8:f00d::<group number>
>
> Where <group number> is any number of your choosing up to 64 bits, but recommended
> to be ≤32 bits.
>
> Make sense?

Sure, for v6. :)

Greg

> Owen
>
> On May 3, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote:
>
>> Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for
>> the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a
>> /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast
>> address you have along with vastly superior security and network
>> simplicity.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Quentin Carpent
>> <quentin.carpent [at] vtx-telecom> wrote:
>>> You can also use the glop IP addressing:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3180
>>>
>>> Quentin
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Greg Shepherd [mailto:gjshep [at] gmail]
>>> Sent: Thu 5/3/2012 9:35 PM
>>> To: Philip Lavine
>>> Cc: NANOG list
>>> Subject: Re: mulcast assignments
>>>
>>> Why do you think you need an assigned mcast block? All inter domain
>>> mcast uses source trees only, so just use SSM and you don't need
>>> address assignments.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Philip Lavine <source_route [at] yahoo> wrote:
>>>>    How do I get a registered multicast block?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>


Valdis.Kletnieks at vt

May 3, 2012, 1:42 PM

Post #7 of 15 (829 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:38:14 -0700, Greg Shepherd said:
> > Make sense?
>
> Sure, for v6. :)

Does it make sense to be planning new deployments for anythign else? ;)

(Hint - if your reaction is "but we're not v6-capable", who's fault is that?)


gjshep at gmail

May 3, 2012, 2:33 PM

Post #8 of 15 (829 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:42 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks [at] vt> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:38:14 -0700, Greg Shepherd said:
>> > Make sense?
>>
>> Sure, for v6. :)
>
> Does it make sense to be planning new deployments for anythign else? ;)
>
> (Hint - if your reaction is "but we're not v6-capable", who's fault is that?)

The original question was not from me. :)

But even for IPv6 I would avoid embedded addressing and just use SSM.
With SSM there's no need for embedded addressing and again you get all
the security and network simplicity.

FF3x::/96

Greg


nick at foobar

May 3, 2012, 3:32 PM

Post #9 of 15 (829 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

On 03/05/2012 21:00, Greg Shepherd wrote:
> Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for
> the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a
> /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast
> address you have along with vastly superior security and network
> simplicity.

SSM is indeed a lot simpler and better than GLOP in every conceivable way -
except vendor support. It needs igmpv3 on all intermediate devices and SSM
support on the client device. All major desktop operating systems now have
SSM support (OS/X since 10.7/Lion), but there is still lots of older
hardware which either doesn't support igmpv3 or else only supports it in a
very primitive fashion. This can lead to Unexpected Behaviour in naive
roll-outs.

Nick


gjshep at gmail

May 3, 2012, 3:44 PM

Post #10 of 15 (829 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick [at] foobar> wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 21:00, Greg Shepherd wrote:
>> Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for
>> the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a
>> /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast
>> address you have along with vastly superior security and network
>> simplicity.
>
> SSM is indeed a lot simpler and better than GLOP in every conceivable way -
> except vendor support. It needs igmpv3 on all intermediate devices and SSM
> support on the client device. All major desktop operating systems now have
> SSM support (OS/X since 10.7/Lion), but there is still lots of older
> hardware which either doesn't support igmpv3 or else only supports it in a
> very primitive fashion. This can lead to Unexpected Behaviour in naive
> roll-outs.

I haven't seen a piece of network gear without SSM support in a very
long time. The weak link is the applications. It was the OS stacks but
that's finally caught up - it only took it 10 years...

The weakest link is simply multicast deployment - if it's not
everywhere it has little use. That's what AMT is promising to fix. And
with AMT comes the opportunity to bring SSM to non-SSM-capable apps if
it is implemented correctly.

Greg

> Nick
>


paul4004 at gmail

May 3, 2012, 4:31 PM

Post #11 of 15 (816 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

And I've seen plenty of gear without SSM support:

Some of the larger offenders:
Juniper Clusters.
Cisco ASA
Some Linksys managed switches (no IGMP snooping support for it).

I really wouldn't think it'd be that hard to implement SSM if the equipment
had functional ASM support, but that's a story for another day I guess.

Most development for mcast largely occurred between the last 90s and early
2000s it seems. Since ~2005 once the hopes of inter-domain multicast
fizzled and IPTV failed to launch in any meaningfully way, multicast
development has largely been neglected by the major equipment vendors and
cast away as some funky thing used by certain enterprise and educational
market segments.

At least, IMHO...



On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Greg Shepherd <gjshep [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick [at] foobar> wrote:
> > On 03/05/2012 21:00, Greg Shepherd wrote:
> >> Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for
> >> the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a
> >> /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast
> >> address you have along with vastly superior security and network
> >> simplicity.
> >
> > SSM is indeed a lot simpler and better than GLOP in every conceivable
> way -
> > except vendor support. It needs igmpv3 on all intermediate devices and
> SSM
> > support on the client device. All major desktop operating systems now
> have
> > SSM support (OS/X since 10.7/Lion), but there is still lots of older
> > hardware which either doesn't support igmpv3 or else only supports it in
> a
> > very primitive fashion. This can lead to Unexpected Behaviour in naive
> > roll-outs.
>
> I haven't seen a piece of network gear without SSM support in a very
> long time. The weak link is the applications. It was the OS stacks but
> that's finally caught up - it only took it 10 years...
>
> The weakest link is simply multicast deployment - if it's not
> everywhere it has little use. That's what AMT is promising to fix. And
> with AMT comes the opportunity to bring SSM to non-SSM-capable apps if
> it is implemented correctly.
>
> Greg
>
> > Nick
> >
>
>


jeff.tantsura at ericsson

May 3, 2012, 11:53 PM

Post #12 of 15 (805 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

Hi,

All modern routers support mapping from IGMPv2 to PIM SSM, all static, some others thru DNS, etc

Regards,
Jeff

On May 3, 2012, at 12:34 PM, "Nick Hilliard" <nick [at] foobar> wrote:

> On 03/05/2012 21:00, Greg Shepherd wrote:
>> Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for
>> the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a
>> /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast
>> address you have along with vastly superior security and network
>> simplicity.
>
> SSM is indeed a lot simpler and better than GLOP in every conceivable way -
> except vendor support. It needs igmpv3 on all intermediate devices and SSM
> support on the client device. All major desktop operating systems now have
> SSM support (OS/X since 10.7/Lion), but there is still lots of older
> hardware which either doesn't support igmpv3 or else only supports it in a
> very primitive fashion. This can lead to Unexpected Behaviour in naive
> roll-outs.
>
> Nick
>


hoyosa at gmail

May 4, 2012, 10:13 AM

Post #13 of 15 (800 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

On May 3, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Philip Lavine wrote:

> How do I get a registered multicast block?


If you truly need a globally unique multicast block, and GLOP/RFC6034/SSM won't work, you can submit an application to IANA here:

http://www.iana.org/form/multicast-ipv4

--
Andrew Hoyos
hoyosa [at] gmail


marshall.eubanks at gmail

May 4, 2012, 4:45 PM

Post #14 of 15 (802 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Jeff Tantsura
<jeff.tantsura [at] ericsson> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> All modern routers support mapping from IGMPv2 to PIM SSM, all static, some others thru DNS, etc

I am not sure what you mean here. To support SSM, you need IGMPv3. Most
routers do support IGMPv3, but there is still a fair amount of legacy
gear at various
edges which doesn't.

Regards
Marshall

>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
> On May 3, 2012, at 12:34 PM, "Nick Hilliard" <nick [at] foobar> wrote:
>
>> On 03/05/2012 21:00, Greg Shepherd wrote:
>>> Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for
>>> the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a
>>> /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast
>>> address you have along with vastly superior security and network
>>> simplicity.
>>
>> SSM is indeed a lot simpler and better than GLOP in every conceivable way -
>> except vendor support. It needs igmpv3 on all intermediate devices and SSM
>> support on the client device. All major desktop operating systems now have
>> SSM support (OS/X since 10.7/Lion), but there is still lots of older
>> hardware which either doesn't support igmpv3 or else only supports it in a
>> very primitive fashion. This can lead to Unexpected Behaviour in naive
>> roll-outs.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>


jeff.tantsura at ericsson

May 4, 2012, 6:00 PM

Post #15 of 15 (801 views)
Permalink
Re: mulcast assignments [In reply to]

Marshall,

That's exactly what the feature does, when it receives a IGMPv1/2 join it adds a preconfigured S and sends S,G (INCLUDE)upstream.
Google for IGMP mapping


Regards,
Jeff

On May 4, 2012, at 1:45 PM, "Marshall Eubanks" <marshall.eubanks [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Jeff Tantsura
> <jeff.tantsura [at] ericsson> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> All modern routers support mapping from IGMPv2 to PIM SSM, all static, some others thru DNS, etc
>
> I am not sure what you mean here. To support SSM, you need IGMPv3. Most
> routers do support IGMPv3, but there is still a fair amount of legacy
> gear at various
> edges which doesn't.
>
> Regards
> Marshall
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jeff
>>
>> On May 3, 2012, at 12:34 PM, "Nick Hilliard" <nick [at] foobar> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/05/2012 21:00, Greg Shepherd wrote:
>>>> Sure, but GLOP predated SSM, and was really only an interim fix for
>>>> the presumed need of mcast address assignments. GLOP only gives you a
>>>> /24 for each ASN where SSM gives you a /8 for every unique unicast
>>>> address you have along with vastly superior security and network
>>>> simplicity.
>>>
>>> SSM is indeed a lot simpler and better than GLOP in every conceivable way -
>>> except vendor support. It needs igmpv3 on all intermediate devices and SSM
>>> support on the client device. All major desktop operating systems now have
>>> SSM support (OS/X since 10.7/Lion), but there is still lots of older
>>> hardware which either doesn't support igmpv3 or else only supports it in a
>>> very primitive fashion. This can lead to Unexpected Behaviour in naive
>>> roll-outs.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>

NANOG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.