rfc9812.original   rfc9812.txt 
6man B. E. Carpenter Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland BCP: 242 Univ. of Auckland
Updates: 7249 (if approved) S. Krishnan Request for Comments: 9812 S. Krishnan
Intended status: Best Current Practice Cisco Updates: 7249 Cisco
Expires: 13 November 2025 D. Farmer Category: Best Current Practice D. Farmer
Univ. of Minnesota ISSN: 2070-1721 Univ. of Minnesota
12 May 2025 October 2025
Clarification of IPv6 Address Allocation Policy Clarification of IPv6 Address Allocation Policy
draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-05
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the approval process for changes to the IPv6 This document specifies the approval process for changes to the "IPv6
Address Space registry. It also updates RFC 7249. Address Space" registry. It also updates RFC 7249.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the 6MAN Working Group
mailing list (mailto:ipv6@ietf.org), which is archived at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/. Subscribe at
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6/.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 13 November 2025. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9812.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
2. Approval Level of IPv6 Address Allocations . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Approval Level of IPv6 Address Allocations
3. RFC Editor Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IANA Considerations
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Security Considerations
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. References
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.1. Normative References
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.2. Informative References
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Acknowledgements
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Authors' Addresses
Appendix A. Change Log [RFC Editor: please remove] . . . . . . . 6
A.1. draft-carpenter-6man-addr-assign-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A.2. Draft-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A.3. Draft-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A.4. draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A.5. Draft-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A.6. Draft-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A.7. Draft-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.8. Draft-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A.9. Draft-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) and its address space are defined Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) and its address space are defined
by [STD86] and [RFC4291]. The management of the IPv6 address space by [STD86] and [RFC4291]. The management of the IPv6 address space
was delegated to IANA by [RFC1881], some years before the was delegated to IANA by [RFC1881], some years before the
relationship between the IETF and IANA was formalized [RFC2860] and relationship between the IETF and IANA was formalized [RFC2860] and
registry details were clarified [RFC7020], [RFC7249]. registry details were clarified [RFC7020] [RFC7249].
Occasionally, IPv6 address space allocations are performed outside Occasionally, IPv6 address space allocations are performed outside
the scope of routine allocations to Regional Internet Registries the scope of routine allocations to Regional Internet Registries
(RIRs). For example, a substantial allocation was requested by an (RIRs). For example, a substantial allocation was requested by an
IETF document approved by the IESG [RFC9602], which moved the range IETF document approved by the IESG [RFC9602], which moved the range
5f00::/16 from the Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space registry 5f00::/16 from the "IPv6 Address Space" registry [IANA1] to the "IPv6
[IANA1] to the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry [IANA3]. Special-Purpose Address Space" registry [IANA3].
At the time of writing, the allocation policy in the Internet At the time of writing, the allocation policy in the "IPv6 Address
Protocol Version 6 Address Space registry [IANA1] was shown as "IESG Space" registry [IANA1] was shown as "IESG approval", whereas a more
approval", whereas for major allocations a more stringent policy is stringent policy is appropriate for major allocations. The present
appropriate. The present document therefore strengthens the approval document therefore strengthens the approval level needed for non-
level needed for non-routine address allocations, which requires an routine address allocations, which requires an update to [RFC7249].
update to RFC 7249.
This document also clarifies the status of RFC 1881. This This document also clarifies the status of [RFC1881]. This
clarification is necessary because RFC 1881, a joint publication of clarification is necessary because [RFC1881], a joint publication of
the IAB and IESG following an IETF Last Call, was incorrectly listed the IAB and IESG following an IETF Last Call, was incorrectly listed
in the RFC index at the time of writing as "legacy", whereas it is in the RFC index at the time of writing as "Legacy", whereas it is
part of the IETF stream [RFC8729]. part of the IETF Stream [RFC8729].
2. Approval Level of IPv6 Address Allocations 2. Approval Level of IPv6 Address Allocations
Portions of the IPv6 address space are shown in the registry [IANA1] Portions of the IPv6 address space are shown in the registry as
as "Reserved by IETF". This is the address space held in reserve for "Reserved by IETF" [IANA1]. This is the address space held in
future use if ever the 125-bit unicast space (2000::/3) is found reserve for future use if ever the 125-bit unicast space (2000::/3)
inadequate or inappropriate. is found inadequate or inappropriate.
RFC 1881 did not specify an allocation policy for this space. At [RFC1881] did not specify an allocation policy for this space. At
some point, IANA listed "IESG approval". As defined in [BCP26], this some point, IANA listed "IESG approval". As defined in [BCP26], this
is a rather weak requirement ("Although there is no requirement that is a rather weak requirement ("Although there is no requirement that
the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has the discretion to the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has the discretion to
request documents...") and is "a fall-back mechanism in the case request documents...") and is "a fall-back mechanism in the case
where one of the other allowable approval mechanisms cannot be where one of the other allowable approval mechanisms cannot be
employed...". employed...".
For something as important as the majority of the spare IPv6 address For something as important as the majority of the spare IPv6 address
space, this process is clearly insufficient. The present document space, this process is clearly insufficient. The present document
replaces the "IESG approval" process by the "IETF Review" process as replaces the "IESG approval" process by the "IETF Review" process as
defined by BCP 26. It is not considered necessary to require the defined by [BCP26]. The stricter "Standards Action" policy is not
stricter "Standards Action" policy, because there might be cases considered necessary, because there may be cases where opening up a
where opening up a new range of address space did not in fact require new range of address space does not in fact require a new protocol
a new protocol standard. standard.
It may be noted that the allocation for [RFC9602], which was It may be noted that the allocation for [RFC9602], which was
processed as a working group document, did indeed follow the more processed as a working group document, did indeed follow the more
stringent "IETF Review" process proposed by this document. Indeed, stringent "IETF Review" process proposed by this document. Indeed,
the other two related registries [IANA2] [IANA3] do cite the "IETF the other two related registries [IANA2] [IANA3] cite the "IETF
Review" policy, consistently with RFC 7249. Review" policy, consistent with [RFC7249].
This document therefore extends the first paragraph of section 2.3 of This document therefore extends the first paragraph of Section 2.3 of
[RFC7249] as follows: [RFC7249] as follows:
OLD: OLD:
| The vast bulk of the IPv6 address space (approximately 7/8ths of | The vast bulk of the IPv6 address space (approximately 7/8ths of
| the whole address space) is reserved by the IETF [RFC4291], with | the whole address space) is reserved by the IETF [RFC4291], with
| the expectation that further assignment of globally unique unicast | the expectation that further assignment of globally unique unicast
| address space will be made from this reserved space in accordance | address space will be made from this reserved space in accordance
| with future needs. | with future needs.
NEW: NEW:
| The vast bulk of the IPv6 address space (approximately 7/8ths of | The vast bulk of the IPv6 address space (approximately 7/8ths of
| the whole address space) is reserved by the IETF [RFC4291], with | the whole address space) is reserved by the IETF [RFC4291], with
| the expectation that further assignment of globally unique unicast | the expectation that further assignment of globally unique unicast
| address space will be made from this reserved space in accordance | address space will be made from this reserved space in accordance
| with future needs, through "IETF Review" as defined in [BCP26]. | with future needs, through "IETF Review" as defined in [BCP26].
3. RFC Editor Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
The RFC Editor is requested to update the "Stream" information for
[RFC1881] to "IETF" in place of "Legacy".
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to update the "Registration Procedure(s)" section IANA has updated the registration procedure of the "IPv6 Address
of the Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space registry [IANA1] to Space" registry [IANA1] to "IETF Review".
show the policy as "IETF Review".
5. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC7249] apply. While having no The security considerations of [RFC7249] apply. While having no
direct security impact, carefully reviewed address allocation direct security impact, carefully reviewed address allocation
mechanisms are necessary to ensure operational address mechanisms are necessary to ensure operational address
accountability. accountability.
6. Acknowledgements 5. References
Useful comments were received from Dale Carder, Bob Hinden, Scott
Kelly, Philipp Tiesel, and others.
7. References
7.1. Normative References 5.1. Normative References
[BCP26] Best Current Practice 26, [BCP26] Best Current Practice 26,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291>. 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[STD86] Internet Standard 86, [STD86] Internet Standard 86,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std86>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std86>.
At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following: At the time of writing, this STD comprises the following:
Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
7.2. Informative References 5.2. Informative References
[IANA1] "Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space", n.d., [IANA1] IANA, "IPv6 Address Space",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space>. <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space>.
[IANA2] "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments", n.d., [IANA2] IANA, "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Space",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address- <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-
assignments>. assignments>.
[IANA3] "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry", n.d., [IANA3] IANA, "IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Space",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special- <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-
registry>. registry>.
[RFC1881] IAB and IESG, "IPv6 Address Allocation Management", [RFC1881] IAB and IESG, "IPv6 Address Allocation Management",
RFC 1881, DOI 10.17487/RFC1881, December 1995, RFC 1881, DOI 10.17487/RFC1881, December 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1881>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1881>.
[RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of [RFC2860] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000, DOI 10.17487/RFC2860, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2860>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2860>.
[RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The [RFC7020] Housley, R., Curran, J., Huston, G., and D. Conrad, "The
Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020, Internet Numbers Registry System", RFC 7020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7020, August 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC7020, August 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7020>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7020>.
[RFC7249] Housley, R., "Internet Numbers Registries", RFC 7249, [RFC7249] Housley, R., "Internet Numbers Registries", RFC 7249,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7249, May 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7249, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7249>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7249>.
[RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and [RFC8729] Housley, R., Ed. and L. Daigle, Ed., "The RFC Series and
RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February RFC Editor", RFC 8729, DOI 10.17487/RFC8729, February
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8729>. 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8729>.
[RFC9602] Krishnan, S., "Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Segment [RFC9602] Krishnan, S., "Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Segment
Identifiers in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture", Identifiers in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture",
RFC 9602, DOI 10.17487/RFC9602, October 2024, RFC 9602, DOI 10.17487/RFC9602, October 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9602>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9602>.
Appendix A. Change Log [RFC Editor: please remove]
A.1. draft-carpenter-6man-addr-assign-00
* Original version
A.2. Draft-01
* Added author
* Added citations
* Small update to RFC 7249
* Added appendix on registry names
A.3. Draft-02
* Clarified some details
A.4. draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-00
* Adopted by WG
A.5. Draft-01
* Changed stream for RFC 1881 to IETF
* Editorial improvements
A.6. Draft-02
* Further editorial improvements
A.7. Draft-03
* At IESG's request, removed the appendix about registry names,
which will be handled by IANA directly.
* Clarified discussion of RFC9602
* Improved security considerations
* Minor editorial changes
A.8. Draft-04
* Minor editorial changes
A.9. Draft-05
* Corrected title to "Allocation" instead of "Assignment" Acknowledgements
* Minor editorial changes Useful comments were received from Dale Carder, Bob Hinden, Scott
Kelly, Philipp Tiesel, and others.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Brian E. Carpenter Brian E. Carpenter
The University of Auckland The University of Auckland
School of Computer Science School of Computer Science
PB 92019 PB 92019
Auckland 1142 Auckland 1142
New Zealand New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Suresh Krishnan Suresh Krishnan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: suresh.krishnan@gmail.com Email: suresh.krishnan@gmail.com
David E. Farmer III David E. Farmer III
University of Minnesota University of Minnesota
Office of Information Technology Office of Information Technology
Minneapolis MN 55455 Minneapolis, MN 55455
United States of America United States of America
Email: farmer@umn.edu Email: farmer@umn.edu
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
168 lines changed or deleted 80 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.