<?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-02" 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-02"/>
    <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 space. At some
point, IANA listed "IESG approval". As defined in <xref target="BCP26"/>,
this is 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 is "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, the currently defined process is clearly insufficient. The present document replaces
the "IESG approval" process 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 anchor="draft-02-1">
        <name>Draft-02</name>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Further editorial improvements</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
    </section>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
