<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
     submissionType="IETF"
     category="info"
     ipr="trust200902"
     docName="draft-millerwissen-f000-reservation-00"
     xml:lang="en"
     symRefs="true"
     sortRefs="true"
     version="3">

  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.28.1 -->
  <!-- Generated by id2xml 1.5.2 on 2025-05-06T00:31:09Z -->
	<!--
   draft-millerwissen-f000-reservation-00.txt.txt(7): Warning: Unexpected text:
   expected blank lines after document date, found 'Line(num=6, txt='Reservation
   of f000::/4 for Structured Internal-Use IPv6 Addressing')'
   -->
<front>
  <title abbrev="f000-reservation">Reservation of f000::/4 for Structured Internal-Use IPv6 Addressing</title>
  <author fullname="Miller Wissen" initials="M." surname="Wissen">
    <address>
      <postal>
        <city>Frankfurt am Main</city>
        <country>Germany</country>
      </postal>
      <email>int@millerwissen.com</email>
    </address>
  </author>
  <date year="2025" month="May" day="5"/>
  <workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>
  <abstract>
    <t>This document proposes the reservation of the IPv6 address block
    f000::/4 for structured internal-use networking. This allocation
    extends the concepts of Unique Local Addresses (ULAs) as defined in
    RFC 4193, acknowledging the growing demand for a larger, more
    hierarchically organised, and clearly non-internet-routable address
    space for internal networks. The reservation of f000::/4 would
    prevent future conflicts with public allocations and provide
    operational clarity to large-scale, privacy-focused, or non-public
    infrastructures.</t>
  </abstract>
</front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="sect-1" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>
   IPv6 was designed with the intention of end-to-end global addressing,
   eliminating the need for NAT and simplifying global routing. However,
   practical deployment experience has shown that not all devices,
   networks, or use cases benefit from global addressability. Internal
   networks, isolated infrastructures, and large-scale private deployments
   continue to need structured, non-routable address space for
   segmentation, privacy, hierarchy, and operational simplicity.</t>
      <t>
   RFC 4193 introduced the fc00::/7 block for Unique Local Addresses (ULAs),
   but it is relatively constrained in size, and the distinction between
   "fc" and "fd" prefixes can be ambiguous in practice. Meanwhile, many
   real-world networks have adopted other portions of the unallocated
   high-bit IPv6 space (e.g., f000::/4) for internal use.</t>
      <t>
   This document proposes formally reserving f000::/4 for structured
   internal addressing, preventing its future use as public address space
   and aligning official policy with existing practice.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-2" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Motivation</name>
      <t>
   Despite the expansive address space provided by IPv6, there remains a
   fundamental need for private, non-globally routable address blocks.
   Several practical realities drive this requirement:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Not every device is suited for global connectivity. Many devices,
     such as embedded controllers, IoT sensors, and legacy systems, are
     best kept off the public internet.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Some ISPs offer only limited IPv6 connectivity (e.g., a single /64
     or one usable global address, sometimes with port restrictions).</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Organisations frequently operate geographically distributed internal
     networks connected by VPNs or other overlays that should remain
     isolated from the public internet.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Address planning and hierarchical segmentation benefit from a larger
     and more structured internal-use space than fc00::/7 currently allows.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-3" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Structured Addressing Use Case</name>
      <t>
   Consider an organisation that operates multiple locations and entities.
   Their addressing may follow a hierarchy such as:</t>
      <dl newline="false" spacing="normal" indent="20">
        <dt/>
        <dd>     f1:33:3:1a::7:1a  - Company 1, France, Strasbourg, Building A,
                         VM segment, NIC A</dd>
        <dt/>
        <dd>
          <t>     f2:33:3:1a::7:1a  - Company 2, same site and structure, but logically
                         separated at the top level</t>
          <dl newline="true" spacing="normal" indent="2">
            <dt>In this model:</dt>
            <dd>
              <ul spacing="normal">
                <li>
                  <t>The first hexadecimal (f1, f2, etc.) denotes logical separation
       (e.g., company, person, function)</t>
                </li>
                <li>
                  <t>Subsequent fields denote country codes, regions, buildings, and
       network segments</t>
                </li>
                <li>
                  <t>The final octets define purposes (e.g., VM, NIC, sensors)</t>
                </li>
              </ul>
            </dd>
          </dl>
        </dd>
      </dl>
      <t>
   Such structured internal addressing supports ease of management,
   deterministic routing, and strong auditability - attributes that are
   especially valuable in private sector, defence, industrial, and
   inter-organisational settings.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-4" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Real-World Adoption</name>
      <t>
   In practice, many network administrators already use f000::/4 or its
   subranges for internal networks. Examples include:</t>
      <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
- Enterprises avoiding `fc00::/7` due to Matter protocol conflicts
- Data centres using f8::/8 as a structured overlay
- Multi-site VPNs mapping `f000::/4` internally with consistent schemes
]]></artwork>
      <t>
   Despite no official allocation, the range is already widely treated
   as non-routable and internal-only. However, if IANA were to assign
   f000::/4 for global use in future, it would create significant
   conflicts for these deployments.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-5" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Proposal</name>
      <t>
   This document proposes:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>IANA formally reserves `f000::/4` for internal-use structured IPv6
     addressing.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>This range MUST NOT be advertised on the public internet.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Implementations SHOULD treat packets from this range as unroutable
     across public interfaces.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Operators MAY use this block for internal routing, NAT66, NPTv6,
     overlay networks, and segmented infrastructures.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-6" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>
   IANA is requested to update the IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry
   with the following entry:</t>
      <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
  Address Block:      f000::/4
  Name:               Structured Internal-Use IPv6 Space
  RFC:                [This Document]
  Allocation Date:    [To Be Filled by IANA]
  Termination Date:   N/A
  Source:             False
  Destination:        False
  Forwardable:        False
  Global:             False
  Reserved-by-Protocol: False
]]></artwork>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-7" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>
   Reserving f000::/4 for structured internal use introduces no new
   security vulnerabilities. On the contrary, it enhances operational
   clarity by preventing potential leakage of internal addresses into
   the global space. Operators must still apply appropriate internal
   firewalls, access controls, and traffic isolation.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <reference anchor="RFC4193" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4193.xml">
        <front>
          <title>Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses</title>
          <author fullname="R. Hinden" initials="R." surname="Hinden"/>
          <author fullname="B. Haberman" initials="B." surname="Haberman"/>
          <date month="October" year="2005"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document defines an IPv6 unicast address format that is globally unique and is intended for local communications, usually inside of a site. These addresses are not expected to be routable on the global Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4193"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4193"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="IANA-IPV6" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/ipv6-address-space.xhtml">
        <front>
          <title>IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry</title>
          <author>
            <organization>IANA</organization>
          </author>
          <date><!--
   draft-millerwissen-f000-reservation-00.txt.txt(176): Warning: This author is
   listed in the Author's Address section, but was not found  on the first page:
   Miller Wissen,
   -->
          </date>
        </front>
      </reference>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
