Internet Architecture Board

RFC2850

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

Home»Documents»IAB Correspondence, Reports, and Selected Documents»2004»IAB Comment to Internet AD:Comments on IANA Considerations in IPv6 ULA draft, 15 December, 2004
Date: 15 December, 2004 To: Margaret Wasserman, Internet AD From: Leslie Daigle, IAB Subject: IANA considerations in draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-00.txt

Margaret,

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?

Thanks,

Leslie.