All things related to multicast

[Gordon Rogier <>]

The following from rfc2165 (note, rfc2608 updates 2165).  Also, note that
NetwareIP is designed to use rfc2165.  I do not know of any 1024 block
being assigned by IANA, but 224.0.1.22 and 224.0.1.35 is allocate as noted
below.

Gordon.

Veizades, et. al.           Standards Track                    [Page 63]
RFC 2165               Service Location Protocol               June 1997

23. Non-configurable Parameters

   IP Port number for unicast requests to Directory Agents:

         UDP and TCP Port Number:                          427
 
   Multicast Addresses

         Service Location General Multicast Address:       224.0.1.22
         Directory Agent Discovery Multicast Address:      224.0.1.35

   A range of 1024 contiguous multicast addresses for use as Service
   Specific Discovery Multicast Addresses will be assigned by IANA.


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Gordon Rogier                        

            
Network Engineer                     785-864-0381wk 785-550-4468 cell
Great Plains Network                 785-864-9330 FAX

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Hugh LaMaster wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Bill Fenner wrote:
> 
> > 
> > >> a) MSDP could be configured for a minimum TTL required before
> > >>    sending an SA
> > >
> > >It can, at least in Cisco's implementation.  "ip msdp
> > >ttl-threshold <neighbor> <threshold>".
> > 
> > I'm fairly sure this only controls what packets are allowed to be
> > forwarded inside SA encapsulation, not whether or not SA messages are
> > sent at all.
> > 
> > You're right that discovery protocols mesh poorly with sparse mode
> > (particularly if they try to do expanding-ring searches).  You effectively
> > need to have a PIM domain per smallest administrative area.
> 
> I confess I'm a little confused about this SVRLOC traffic.
> 
> I read RFC2608, which says that the multicast address to be used 
> is address 239.255.255.253  port 427.  Yet, the address
> table shows 224.0.1.22 as assigned to "SVRLOC", and, indeed, there
> is increasing traffic on that group, to port 427.
> 
> 239.255.255.253 makes sense to me, since that will normally
> stay inside the most restrictive administrative scope 
> boundary.  But, 224.0.1.22 makes no sense to me.
> 
> Can anyone shed any light on this?  Apparently, software is 
> shipping using 224.0.1.22.  
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> 
> 
> --
>  Hugh LaMaster, M/S 233-21,    ASCII Email: 
> 
>  NASA Ames Research Center     Or:          
> 
>  Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000  No Junkmail: USC 18 section 2701
>  Phone: 650/604-1056           Disclaimer:  Unofficial, personal *opinion*.
> 
>