<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.21 (Ruby 3.0.2) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-01" category="bcp" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="7249" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.25.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="IPv6 Address Assignment Policy">Clarification of IPv6 Address Assignment Policy</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-01"/>
    <author initials="B. E." surname="Carpenter" fullname="Brian E. Carpenter">
      <organization abbrev="Univ. of Auckland">The University of Auckland</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <postalLine>School of Computer Science</postalLine>
          <postalLine>PB 92019</postalLine>
          <postalLine>Auckland 1142</postalLine>
          <postalLine>New Zealand</postalLine>
        </postal>
        <email>brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="S." surname="Krishnan" fullname="Suresh Krishnan">
      <organization abbrev="Cisco">Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>suresh.krishnan@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="D." surname="Farmer" fullname="David E. Farmer III">
      <organization abbrev="Univ. of Minnesota">University of Minnesota</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <postalLine>Office of Information Technology</postalLine>
          <postalLine>Minneapolis MN 55455</postalLine>
          <postalLine>United States of America</postalLine>
        </postal>
        <email>farmer@umn.edu</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2024" month="December" day="11"/>
    <area>Internet</area>
    <workgroup>6man</workgroup>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 79?>

<t>This document specifies the approval process for changes to the
IPv6 Address Space registry. It also updates RFC 7249.</t>
    </abstract>
    <note removeInRFC="true">
      <name>About This Document</name>
      <t>
        Status information for this document may be found at <eref target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign/"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
        Discussion of this document takes place on the
        6MAN Working Group mailing list (<eref target="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org"/>),
        which is archived at <eref target="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/"/>.
        Subscribe at <eref target="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6/"/>.
      </t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 84?>

<section anchor="intro">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) and its address space are
currently defined by <xref target="STD86"/> and <xref target="RFC4291"/>.
The management of the IPv6 address space was delegated to IANA
by <xref target="RFC1881"/>, some years before the current relationship
between the IETF and IANA was formalized <xref target="RFC2860"/>
and registry details were clarified <xref target="RFC7020"/>, <xref target="RFC7249"/>.</t>
      <t>Occasionally, IPv6 address space allocations are performed outside
the scope of routine allocations to regional address registries.
For example, recently a substantial allocation was requested
by an IETF document approved by the IESG <xref target="RFC9602"/>.</t>
      <t>The allocation policy in the IANA IPv6 Address Space registry
<xref target="IANA1"/> is currently shown as "IESG approval", whereas for
major allocations a more stringent policy is appropriate.
The present document therefore strengthens the approval level
needed for non-routine address allocations, which requires an
update to RFC 7249.</t>
      <t>This document also clarifies the status of RFC 1881.
This clarification is necessary because RFC 1881, a joint
publication of the IAB and IESG following an IETF Last Call,
is incorrectly listed in the RFC index at the time of writing
as "legacy", whereas it remains current.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="approval-level-of-ipv6-address-allocations">
      <name>Approval Level of IPv6 Address Allocations</name>
      <t>Portions of the IPv6 address space are shown in the registry
as "Reserved by IETF". This is the address space held in reserve
for future use if ever the current 125-bit unicast space (2000::/3)
is found inadequate or inappropriate.</t>
      <t>RFC 1881 did not specify an allocation policy for this. At some
point, IANA listed "IESG approval". This is defined in <xref target="BCP26"/>
as a rather weak requirement ("Although there is no
requirement that the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has
the discretion to request documents...") and as "a fall-back
mechanism in the case where one of the other allowable approval
mechanisms cannot be employed...".</t>
      <t>For something as important as the majority of the spare IPv6 address
space, this is clearly insufficient. The present document replaces
this by the "IETF Review" process as defined by BCP 26. It is not 
considered necessary to require the stricter "Standards Action"
policy, because there might be cases where opening up a new range
of address space did not in fact require a new protocol standard.</t>
      <t>It may be noted that the recent allocation for <xref target="RFC9602"/>, which
was processed as a working group document, did indeed follow the more
stringent "IETF Review" process proposed by this document. Indeed, the
other two related registries <xref target="IANA2"/> <xref target="IANA3"/> do cite the "IETF Review"
policy, consistently with RFC 7249.</t>
      <t>This document therefore extends the first paragraph of section 2.3
of <xref target="RFC7249"/> as follows:</t>
      <t>OLD:</t>
      <blockquote>
   The vast bulk of the IPv6 address space (approximately 7/8ths of the
   whole address space) is reserved by the IETF [RFC4291], with the
   expectation that further assignment of globally unique unicast
   address space will be made from this reserved space in accordance
   with future needs.
</blockquote>
      <t>NEW:</t>
      <blockquote>
   The vast bulk of the IPv6 address space (approximately 7/8ths of the
   whole address space) is reserved by the IETF [RFC4291], with the
   expectation that further assignment of globally unique unicast
   address space will be made from this reserved space in accordance
   with future needs, through "IETF Review" as defined in [BCP26].
</blockquote>
    </section>
    <section anchor="rfc-editor-considerations">
      <name>RFC Editor Considerations</name>
      <t>The RFC Editor is requested to update the "Stream" information
for <xref target="RFC1881"/> to "IETF" in place of "Legacy".</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>IANA is requested to update the "Registration Procedure(s)" section
of the Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space registry to show
the policy as "IETF Review".</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>Carefully reviewed address allocation mechanisms are necessary for any form of address-based security.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgements">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>Useful comments were received from
Dale Carder,
Bob Hinden,
Philipp Tiesel,
and others.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <referencegroup anchor="STD86" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std86">
          <reference anchor="RFC8200" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200">
            <front>
              <title>Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification</title>
              <author fullname="S. Deering" initials="S." surname="Deering"/>
              <author fullname="R. Hinden" initials="R." surname="Hinden"/>
              <date month="July" year="2017"/>
              <abstract>
                <t>This document specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6). It obsoletes RFC 2460.</t>
              </abstract>
            </front>
            <seriesInfo name="STD" value="86"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8200"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8200"/>
          </reference>
        </referencegroup>
        <referencegroup anchor="BCP26" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp26">
          <reference anchor="RFC8126" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126">
            <front>
              <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
              <author fullname="M. Cotton" initials="M." surname="Cotton"/>
              <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
              <author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/>
              <date month="June" year="2017"/>
              <abstract>
                <t>Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t>
                <t>To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.</t>
                <t>This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.</t>
              </abstract>
            </front>
            <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="26"/>
            <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8126"/>
            <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8126"/>
          </reference>
        </referencegroup>
        <reference anchor="RFC4291">
          <front>
            <title>IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="R. Hinden" initials="R." surname="Hinden"/>
            <author fullname="S. Deering" initials="S." surname="Deering"/>
            <date month="February" year="2006"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP Version 6 (IPv6) protocol. The document includes the IPv6 addressing model, text representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6 unicast addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an IPv6 node's required addresses.</t>
              <t>This document obsoletes RFC 3513, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture". [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4291"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4291"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC1881">
          <front>
            <title>IPv6 Address Allocation Management</title>
            <author>
              <organization abbrev="IAB">Internet Architecture Board</organization>
            </author>
            <author>
              <organization abbrev="IESG">Internet Engineering Steering Group</organization>
            </author>
            <date month="December" year="1995"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The IPv6 address space will be managed by the IANA for the good of the Internet community, with advice from the IAB and the IESG, by delegation to the regional registries. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1881"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC1881"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2860">
          <front>
            <title>Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority</title>
            <author fullname="B. Carpenter" initials="B." surname="Carpenter"/>
            <author fullname="F. Baker" initials="F." surname="Baker"/>
            <author fullname="M. Roberts" initials="M." surname="Roberts"/>
            <date month="June" year="2000"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document places on record the text of the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the technical work of the IANA that was signed on March 1, 2000 between the IETF and ICANN, and ratified by the ICANN Board on March 10, 2000. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2860"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2860"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7020">
          <front>
            <title>The Internet Numbers Registry System</title>
            <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley"/>
            <author fullname="J. Curran" initials="J." surname="Curran"/>
            <author fullname="G. Huston" initials="G." surname="Huston"/>
            <author fullname="D. Conrad" initials="D." surname="Conrad"/>
            <date month="August" year="2013"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document provides information about the current Internet Numbers Registry System used in the distribution of globally unique Internet Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous system (AS) numbers.</t>
              <t>This document also provides information about the processes for further evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System.</t>
              <t>This document replaces RFC 2050.</t>
              <t>This document does not propose any changes to the current Internet Numbers Registry System. Rather, it documents the Internet Numbers Registry System as it works today.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7020"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7020"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7249">
          <front>
            <title>Internet Numbers Registries</title>
            <author fullname="R. Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley"/>
            <date month="May" year="2014"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 7020 provides information about the Internet Numbers Registry System and how it is used in the distribution of autonomous system (AS) numbers and globally unique unicast Internet Protocol (IP) address space.</t>
              <t>This companion document identifies the IANA registries that are part of the Internet Numbers Registry System at this time.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7249"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7249"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9602">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Segment Identifiers in the IPv6 Addressing Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="S. Krishnan" initials="S." surname="Krishnan"/>
            <date month="October" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) uses IPv6 as the underlying data plane. Thus, Segment Identifiers (SIDs) used by SRv6 can resemble IPv6 addresses and behave like them while exhibiting slightly different behaviors in some situations. This document explores the characteristics of SRv6 SIDs and focuses on the relationship of SRv6 SIDs to the IPv6 Addressing Architecture. This document allocates and makes a dedicated prefix available for SRv6 SIDs.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9602"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9602"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="IANA1" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space">
          <front>
            <title>IPv6 Address Space registry</title>
            <author>
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date>n.d.</date>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="IANA2" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments">
          <front>
            <title>IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments</title>
            <author>
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date>n.d.</date>
          </front>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="IANA3" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry">
          <front>
            <title>IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry</title>
            <author>
              <organization/>
            </author>
            <date>n.d.</date>
          </front>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <?line 184?>

<section anchor="ipv6-registry-title-inconsistencies">
      <name>IPv6 Registry Title Inconsistencies</name>
      <t>The authors would like to draw attention to inconsistencies in the titles for two of the IPv6 Address Registries: the "Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space" registry <xref target="IANA1"/> and the "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Assignments" registry <xref target="IANA2"/>. These two titles are inconsistent with the titles for the "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry" <xref target="IANA3"/> and the similar IPv4 registries, the "IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry" and the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry."</t>
      <t>While these are mostly editorial issues, likely within IANA's control, confusion caused by these different titles could have easily contributed to not updating the Registry Procedures for the "Internet Protocol Version 6 Address Space" registry at the time of RFC 7249.</t>
      <t>The "IANA IPv6 Address Space Registry" and the "IANA IPv6 Global Unicast Address Space Registry" are possibly more consistent titles for these registries.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="change-log-rfc-editor-please-remove">
      <name>Change Log [RFC Editor: please remove]</name>
      <section anchor="draft-carpenter-6man-addr-assign-00">
        <name>draft-carpenter-6man-addr-assign-00</name>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Original version</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="draft-01">
        <name>Draft-01</name>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Added author</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Added citations</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Small update to RFC 7249</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Added appendix on registry names</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="draft-02">
        <name>Draft-02</name>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Clarified some details</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-00">
        <name>draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-00</name>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Adopted by WG</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="draft-01-1">
        <name>Draft-01</name>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Changed stream for RFC 1881 to IETF</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Editorial improvements</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
    </section>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
