Network Working Group                                           D. Meyer
Request for Comments: 3138                                        Sprint
Category: Informational                                        June 2001
        
Network Working Group                                           D. Meyer
Request for Comments: 3138                                        Sprint
Category: Informational                                        June 2001

Extended Assignments in 233/8

233/8中的扩展作业

Status of this Memo

本备忘录的状况

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。

Copyright Notice

版权公告

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

版权所有（C）互联网协会（2001年）。版权所有。

Abstract

摘要

This memo provides describes the mapping of the GLOP addresses corresponding to the private AS space.

此备忘录描述了与专用AS空间相对应的GLOP地址的映射。

1. Introduction
1. 介绍

RFC 2770 [RFC2770] describes an experimental policy for use of the class D address space using 233/8. The technique described there maps 16 bits of Autonomous System number (AS) into the middle two octets of 233/8 to yield a /24. While this technique has been successful, the assignments are inefficient in those cases in which a /24 is too small or the user doesn't have its own AS.

RFC 2770[RFC2770]描述了使用233/8使用D类地址空间的实验性策略。这里描述的技术将16位自治系统号（AS）映射到233/8的中间两个八位字节，以产生a/24。虽然这种技术已经成功，但在a/24太小或用户没有自己的AS的情况下，分配效率很低。

RFC 1930 [RFC1930] defines the private AS space to be 64512 through 65535. This memo expands on RFC 2770 to allow routing registries to assign multicast addresses from the GLOP space corresponding to the RFC 1930 private AS space. This space will be referred to as the EGLOP (Extended GLOP) address space.

RFC 1930[RFC1930]将专用AS空间定义为64512到65535。本备忘录对RFC 2770进行了扩展，以允许路由注册中心从对应于RFC 1930专用AS空间的GLOP空间分配多播地址。该空间称为EGLOP（扩展GLOP）地址空间。

This memo is a product of the Multicast Deployment Working Group (MBONED) in the Operations and Management Area of the Internet Engineering Task Force. Submit comments to <mboned@ns.uoregon.edu> or the authors.

本备忘录是互联网工程任务组运营和管理领域多播部署工作组（MBONED）的产品。向提交意见<mboned@ns.uoregon.edu>或者是作者。

The terms "Specification Required", "Expert Review", "IESG Approval", "IETF Consensus", and "Standards Action", are used in this memo to refer to the processes described in [RFC2434]. The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

本备忘录中使用术语“所需规范”、“专家评审”、“IESG批准”、“IETF共识”和“标准行动”来指代[RFC2434]中描述的过程。关键字必须、不得、可、可选、必需、推荐、应、不应、不应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中的定义进行解释。

2. Overview
2. 概述

http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses defines a mechanism for assignment of multicast addresses that are generally for use in network control applications. It is envisioned that those addresses assigned from the EGLOP space (233.252.0.0 - 233.255.255.255) will be used by applications that cannot use Administratively Scoped Addressing [RFC2365], GLOP Addressing [RFC2770], or Source Specific Multicast (Source Specific Multicast, or SSM, is an extension of IP Multicast in which traffic is forwarded to receivers from only those multicast sources for which the receivers have explicitly expressed interest, and is primarily targeted at one-to-many (broadcast) applications).

http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses 定义通常用于网络控制应用程序的多播地址分配机制。可以预见，那些从EGLOP空间（233.252.0.0-233.255.255.255）分配的地址将被无法使用管理范围寻址[RFC2365]、GLOP寻址[RFC2770]或源特定多播的应用程序使用（源特定多播，或SSM，是IP多播的一个扩展，在该扩展中，流量仅从接收方明确表示感兴趣的那些多播源转发给接收方，并且主要针对一对多（广播）应用）。

3. Assignment Criteria
3. 分配标准

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.

EGLOP空间中全局范围的IPv4多播地址由区域注册表（RIR）分配。根据[IANA]，申请人必须证明无法使用管理范围寻址[RFC2365]、GLOP寻址[RFC2770]或SSM满足请求。细粒度分配策略留给分配RIR。

4. Security Considerations
4. 安全考虑

The assignment scheme described in this document does not effect the security properties of the the single source or any source multicast service models.

本文档中描述的分配方案不会影响单源或任何源多播服务模型的安全属性。

5. Acknowledgments
5. 致谢

Kurt Kayser, Mirjam Kuehne, Michelle Schipper and Randy Bush provided many insightful comments on earlier versions of this document.

Kurt Kayser、Mirjam Kuehne、Michelle Schipper和Randy Bush对本文件的早期版本发表了许多有见地的评论。

6. Author's Address
6. 作者地址

David Meyer Sprint 12502 Sunrise Valley Dr Reston VA, 20191

大卫·迈耶·斯普林特12502日出谷弗吉尼亚州雷斯顿博士，20191 

   EMail: dmm@sprint.net
        
   EMail: dmm@sprint.net
7. References
7. 工具书类 
   [IANA]          http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses
        
   [IANA]          http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses

[RFC1930] Hawkinson J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for creation, selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)", RFC 1930, March 1996.

[RFC1930]霍金森J.和T.贝茨，“自主系统（AS）的创建、选择和注册指南”，RFC 1930，1996年3月。

[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

[RFC2026]Bradner，S.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，1996年10月。

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。

[RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC 2365, July 1998.

[RFC2365]Meyer，D.，“管理范围的IP多播”，RFC 2365，1998年7月。

[RFC2770] Meyer, D. and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", RFC 2770, February 2000.

[RFC2770]Meyer，D.和P.Lothberg，“233/8中的GLOP寻址”，RFC 27702000年2月。

[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000.

[RFC2780]Bradner，S.和V.Paxson，“互联网协议和相关报头中值的IANA分配指南”，BCP 37，RFC 2780，2000年3月。

Full Copyright Statement

完整版权声明

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.

版权所有（C）互联网协会（2001年）。版权所有。

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.

本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。

Acknowledgement

确认

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.

RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。