Skip to main content

IAB Comment to Internet AD:Comments on IANA Considerations in IPv6 ULA draft, 15 December, 2004

Document Type IAB Statement
Title IAB Comment to Internet AD:Comments on IANA Considerations in IPv6 ULA draft, 15 December, 2004
Published 2004-12-15
Metadata last updated 2023-08-09
State Active
Send notices to (None)
Date: 15 December, 2004 
To: Margaret Wasserman, Internet AD 
From: Leslie Daigle, IAB 
Subject: IANA considerations in draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt


Some time ago, I acquired an action item to review the IANA Considerations in draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt, from the standpoint implementability, as far as the IAB providing instructions to IANA is concerned.

This is the specific text in the document:

5.0 IANA Considerations The IANA is instructed to assign the
FC00::/8 prefix for Centrally assigned Unique Local IPv6 unicast
addresses. The IANA is instructed to delegate, within a reasonable
time, the prefix FC00::/8 to an allocation authority for Unique Local
IPv6 Unicast prefixes of length /48. This allocation authority shall
comply with the requirements described in section 3.2 of this document,
including in particular allocation on a permanent basis and with
sufficient provisions to avoid hoarding of numbers. If deemed
appropriate, the authority may also consist of multiple organizations
performing the authority duties.


The IAB has discussed this text, and we believe it is desirable to require the minimum amount of interpretation by IANA (when the document is approved, and through any subsequent appropriate changes). Generally, the IETF has handled this by asking IANA to make a delegation under IAB instruction. In particular, this also leaves room for future adjustments from the IETF (by changing IAB instructions). That would require a mild modification to the 2nd para above.

We further suggest that whatever entity is recommended, the entity create an RFC that describes how they will meet the requirements of section 3.2 It doesn’t have to be lengthy. We think it should be some form of IETF-sponsored document (for appropriate review against the requirements of this document, and to ensure appropriate priority in the RFC Editor queue).

What is the best way to convey this input to the IPv6 Working Group?