Skip to main content

Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers
RFC 5453

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2019-01-03
03 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Errata tag)
2015-10-14
03 (System) Notify list changed from 6man-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Jari Arkko
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk
2009-02-11
03 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2009-02-11
03 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 5453' added by Amy Vezza
2009-02-10
03 (System) RFC published
2009-02-06
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2009-02-06
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2009-02-06
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-02-05
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-01-21
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2008-12-24
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2008-12-12
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-12-12
03 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2008-12-12
03 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-12-12
03 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2008-12-12
03 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-12-11
03 Jari Arkko State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::External Party by Jari Arkko
2008-12-11
03 Jari Arkko authors OK the suggested change.
2008-12-11
03 Jari Arkko State Changes to IESG Evaluation::External Party from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Jari Arkko
2008-12-09
03 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Jari Arkko
2008-12-06
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Derek Atkins.
2008-12-05
03 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04
2008-12-04
03 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2008-12-04
03 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
Need to finish the discussion between the chairs and the author.
Also, other ADs asked to keep Appendix A and add informational
references …
[Ballot discuss]
Need to finish the discussion between the chairs and the author.
Also, other ADs asked to keep Appendix A and add informational
references to the other specs.
2008-12-04
03 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Discuss from Yes by Jari Arkko
2008-12-04
03 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward
2008-12-04
03 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2008-12-04
03 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-12-04
03 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-12-04
03 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-12-04
03 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-12-04
03 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk
2008-12-04
03 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk
2008-12-04
03 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2008-12-04
03 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-03
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-03.txt
2008-12-03
03 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-12-02
03 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-12-02
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-02.txt
2008-12-02
03 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-12-02
03 Tim Polk
[Ballot discuss]
Would it be reasonable to reserve some range of Interface Identifiers for future assignment?

This would have no immediate impact, but future implementations …
[Ballot discuss]
Would it be reasonable to reserve some range of Interface Identifiers for future assignment?

This would have no immediate impact, but future implementations could include a measure
of future proofing by avoiding the reserved range during autoconfiguration.
2008-12-02
03 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-12-01
03 Pasi Eronen
[Ballot discuss]
Since IANA already has a registry for subnet anycast addresses
(RFC 2526), the table in Section 4 should probably show just …
[Ballot discuss]
Since IANA already has a registry for subnet anycast addresses
(RFC 2526), the table in Section 4 should probably show just
"fdff:ffff:ffff:ff80-fdff:ffff:ffff:ffff Reserved Subnet Anycast
[RFC2526]" so that when new addresses are allocated from this range,
we don't have to update two registries.

The document title/abstract and name of the IANA registry should
clarify that this applies only to IIDs that are in the Modified
EUI-64 format, not all IIDs.
2008-12-01
03 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-01
03 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2008-12-01
03 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2008-12-01
03 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
This document appears to only create an IANA registry for reserved interface IDs, but doesn't actually update any of the specifications that generate …
[Ballot comment]
This document appears to only create an IANA registry for reserved interface IDs, but doesn't actually update any of the specifications that generate such IDs to say that the values in the IANA registry must be avoided. Did I get this right? If yes, which other document does that? A registry without a described use is relatively pointless.
2008-11-25
03 Jari Arkko State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Jari Arkko
2008-11-24
03 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the registry "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Assignments from this registry are …
IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the registry "Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers" located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Assignments from this registry are discouraged but in exceptional
circumstances are to be made through Standards Action [RFC5226].
Assignments consist of a single interface identifier or a range of
interface identifiers.

Initial contents of this registry will be:


+-----------------------------------------+-------------------------+------------+

| Interface Identifier Range | Description |

Reference |

+-----------------------------------------+-------------------------+------------+

| 0000:0000:0000:0000-0000:0000:0000:0000 | Subnet-Router Anycast |

[RFC4291] |

| | |

|
| fdff:ffff:ffff:ff80-fdff:ffff:ffff:fffd | Reserved Subnet Anycast |

[RFC2526] |

| | |

|
| fdff:ffff:ffff:fffe-fdff:ffff:ffff:fffe | MobileIPv6 Home Agents |

[RFC2526] |

| | Anycast |

|

| | |

|
| fdff:ffff:ffff:ffff-fdff:ffff:ffff:ffff | Reserved Subnet Anycast |

[RFC2526] |

+-----------------------------------------+-------------------------+------------+

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.
2008-11-20
03 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-11-11
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins
2008-11-11
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins
2008-11-06
03 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2008-11-06
03 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-11-05
03 Jari Arkko Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04 by Jari Arkko
2008-11-05
03 Jari Arkko Put on the agenda, assuming no significant LC discussion occurs.
2008-11-05
03 Jari Arkko Last Call was requested by Jari Arkko
2008-11-05
03 Jari Arkko State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Jari Arkko
2008-11-05
03 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2008-11-05
03 Jari Arkko Ballot has been issued by Jari Arkko
2008-11-05
03 Jari Arkko Created "Approve" ballot
2008-11-05
03 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-11-05
03 (System) Last call text was added
2008-11-05
03 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-11-05
03 Cindy Morgan
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he …
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Brian Haberman is the document shepherd. He has reviewed
this version of the document and believes it is ready for
the IESG.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

Yes, the document has received adequate review and the
document shepherd has no concerns with those reviews.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

The document shepherd believes that the WG as a whole supports
this document.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The references are split into normative and informative
dependencies. No normative references are outstanding.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA Considerations section is consistent and clear.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

N/A.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
Interface Identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used
to identify interfaces on a link. They are required to be
unique within a subnet. Several RFCs have specified
interface identifiers or identifier ranges that have a
special meaning attached to them. An IPv6 node
autoconfiguring an interface identifier in these ranges
will encounter unexpected consequences. Since there is no
centralized repository for such reserved identifiers, this
document aims to create one.

Working Group Summary
The 6MAN working group has done extensive reviews of this
document and it reflects the consensus of the working group.

Document Quality
This document has been reviewed by numerous members of the
ipv6@ietf.org mailing list and by the 6MAN WG chairs.
2008-11-05
03 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2008-07-14
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-01.txt
2008-02-11
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-00.txt