Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 From: Leslie Daigle To: Doug Barton CC: IAB Subject: Request for IAB guidance on IANA IPv6 allocation policy
The IAB has discussed the points you raised in your message of April 20, 2004.
With respect to the specific allocation requests you’ve seen, the IAB has reviewed the material you’ve forwarded and agrees that it is comfortable with the allocation being made.
We agree with the issue you have flagged for further consideration. It is apparent that the possibility of more larger-allocation requests is real, and it is important to ensure that the IAB’s instructions to the IANA are clarified and updated to ensure that such requests can be evaluated and managed as part of the normal course of RIR/IANA business going forward.
To that end, we have initiated a discussion with the heads of the RIRs to determine the state of their allocation process planning and forecasting for requirements of IPv6 space in the coming years. We will continue that discussion with a view to providing the updated instructions with the shortest delay reasonably possible.
Doug Barton wrote:
The IANA has received an IPv6 allocation request from the RIPE NCC for 8 /23 sub-TLA blocks. To date, IANA has been allocating IPv6 space under the policies described at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments. All such allocations have been for individual /23 blocks at one time up to this point. Due to the size of this request, and because of the interesting issues that it presents, I am seeking the advice of the IAB in regards to this specific request, and IANA IPv6 allocation policy in general. RIPE has asked IANA to keep the details of the request confidential, and I must of course honor that request. They have authorized me to share the following details in the way of background. Essentially, they have received two very large requests from their members for IPv6 blocks to be used for network wide rollouts. I have a high degree of confidence in the methodology used by the RIPE NCC to validate the legitimacy of these requests, and that their members actually qualify for the allocations that they have requested. Therefore, I can state with certainty that if the IAB agrees that is reasonable for IANA to proceed, we intend to do so.
The issues for discussion as the IANA sees them are as follows. There may of course be additional issues that the IAB wishes to consider.
- Because all previous allocations have been one block at a time, I felt it was important to communicate effectively regarding this request before we acted on it.
- There may be a broader concern that this type of allocation should not be made from the sub-TLA block.
I am asking for two things from the IAB at this point. First, a statement regarding this specific request as to whether the IAB is comfortable with the IANA going ahead. Second, a more general statement regarding how IANA should proceed with other requests of this nature. I feel that this is the proverbial “tip of the iceberg” in terms of requests for IPv6 address space. While I agree that this is an excellent step in the direction of network wide IPv6 deployment, I feel that it is one that should be taken with due consideration. I know from the brief conversation we’ve had about this topic already that you share my feelings on this, and I look forward to your response.