RFC 3701

RFC 3701: 6bone (IPv6 Testing Address Allocation) Phaseout 🦋

Okay bestie, here's the title block tea 🫶

• Series: Network Working Group 🌸
• Number: RFC 3701
• Authors: Robert L. Fink and Robert M. Hinden ✨
• Category: Informational
• Date: March 2004
• Obsoletes: RFC 2471 (which becomes historic, so periodt 💅)

---

Status of this Memo 📝

This memo is just here to provide information for the Internet community 💖 It is not a standard of any kind. Distribution is unlimited, so share away!

Copyright Notice ©️

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 🔒

Abstract 🌈

So the 6bone launched in 1996 as an IPv6 testbed run by the IETF 🧪 It was there to help people test out IPv6 and make the switch to the Internet. It ran on the 3FFE::/16 address allocation from RFC 2471. Now that IPv6 is finally going into production 🚀, it makes total sense to plan a phaseout for the 6bone. This doc lays out a multi-year phaseout plan for the 6bone and its address allocation, because the authors figured the IETF is the right place to decide this 👑

This document obsoletes RFC 2471, "IPv6 Testing Address Allocation", December, 1998. RFC 2471 will become historic 🥀

1. Introduction 🌸

Okay so the 6bone IPv6 Testbed was set up in March 1996 and went live that summer 🌞 It started out on the 5F00::/8 testing allocation [TEST-OLD], which used the original provider-based unicast address format. That format was the old one, so it's obsolete now 💀 In July 1998 a new IPv6 Addressing Architecture [ARCH] swapped that old format for the now-standard Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format [AGGR]. Iconic glow-up ✨

So the 6bone could keep working under the new addressing setup, [TEST-OLD] got replaced by a new IPv6 testing address allocation" of 3FFE::/16 in [TEST-NEW]. In fall 1998, ahead of [AGGR], the 6bone got re-addressed under 3FFE::/16 with little problems 🎀

From fall 1998 until this note came out, the 6bone kept running smoothly on Aggregatable Global Unicast Address prefixes from 3FFE::/16 🦋 It followed a set of 6bone routing practice rules from [GUIDE], and those were later refined into the 6Bone backbone routing guidelines in [PRACTICE].

Over its lifetime, the 6bone gave us:

• a place for early standard developers and implementers to test out the IPv6 protocols and their implementations 🧑‍💻;
• a place for early experimentation with routing and operational procedures 🛠️;
• a place to evolve practices useful for production IPv6 prefix allocation 🍓;
• a place to provide bootstrap qualification for production IPv6 address prefix allocation 🚀;
• a place to develop IPv6 applications 📱;
• a place for early users to try using IPv6 in their hosts and networks 🌸.

Big main character energy 👑 As [TEST-NEW] clearly says, the addresses for the 6bone are temporary and will be reclaimed someday 😭 It also says that everyone using these addresses (inside the 3FFE::/16 prefix) will be required to renumber at some point in the future.

Since 1999, the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) community has been planning and handing out production IPv6 address prefixes 📋 By 2002, more production IPv6 prefixes had been allocated than the 6bone was holding at the top level. People generally treat that as a pretty good sign that it's time to start planning a 6bone phaseout 🔥

People also generally assume the 6bone is still needed a bit, at least for current usage that will take time to evaluate and maybe move onto production IPv6 networks once that's possible 🫶

The 6bone is generally seen as an IETF activity, since IETF folks set it up to help develop IPv6 protocols and support the IPv6 transition ✨ That's why [TEST-NEW] said 6bone testing would sit under the IETF IPng Transition (ngtrans) Working Group's 6bone testbed activity. But in 2002 the ngtrans working group got terminated and was replaced, kind of, by the v6ops working group, and v6ops didn't include overseeing the 6bone in its charter 🙈 So this doc assumes it's right to use the IETF Informational RFC process to decide the 6bone phaseout plan, and also to figure out how to get community feedback on the details 💬

This phaseout plan sets up a multi-year timeline. It gives the 6bone enough time to keep running, and then enough time for 6bone participants to convert to production IPv6 address prefixes from the relevant Regional Internet Registry (RIR), National Internet Registry, or Local Internet Registries (ISPs) 🌈

The plan expects the 6bone to stop operating by June 6, 2006, with all 6bone prefixes fully reclaimed by the IANA 🦋

This document obsoletes RFC 2471, "IPv6 Testing Address Allocation", December, 1998. RFC 2471 will become historic 🥀

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Read those carefully, bestie 🧐

2. 6bone Phaseout Plan 🎀

To keep the 6bone useful for as long as IETF consensus thinks it's worth it, 6bone top-level address prefixes called pseudo TLA's (pTLAs) MAY keep being allocated until January 1, 2004 ✨

So after the pTLA allocation cutoff date of January 1, 2004, it is REQUIRED that no new 6bone 3FFE pTLAs be allocated 🛑

To give 6bone participants enough planning time to convert to production IPv6 address prefixes, every 6bone prefix allocated by the cutoff above SHALL remain valid until June 6, 2006 💖 The only exception is allocations withdrawn as part of 6bone operating procedures.

So after the 6bone phaseout date of June 6, 2006, the intent is that no 6bone 3FFE prefixes, of any size or length, get used on the Internet in any form 💀 Network operators may filter 3FFE prefixes on their borders to make sure they aren't misused 🛡️

It should be noted that this RFC does NOT mean a 6bone prefix holder, whether at the pTLA top level or lower, has to go for a production IPv6 address prefix at any specific level 🙅‍♀️ A 6bone prefix holder may find it totally reasonable to seek a higher-level or lower-level IPv6 prefix, depending on what their needs are.

3. References 📚

3.1. Normative References

• [ARCH] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
• [AGGR] Hinden, R., Deering, S. and M. O'Dell, "An Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format", RFC 2374, July 1998.
• [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Keywords for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
• [TEST-NEW] Hinden, R., Fink, R. and J. Postel, "IPv6 Testing Address Allocation", RFC 2471, December 1998.
• [TEST-OLD] Hinden, R. and J. Postel, "IPv6 Testing Address Allocation", RFC 1897, January 1996.

3.2. Informative References

• [GUIDE] Rockell, R. and R. Fink, "6Bone Backbone Routing Guidelines", RFC 2772, February 2000.
• [PRACTICE] Durand, A. and B. Buclin, "6bone Routing Practice", RFC 2546, March 1999.

5. Security Considerations 🔒

Okay, serious moment 😤 This document defines a phaseout plan for the IPv6 Testing Address Allocation [TEST-NEW], which uses addresses consistent with [AGGR]. It does NOT have any direct impact on Internet infrastructure security. So no direct security drama here, phew 🫶

6. IANA Considerations 🧚

This document defines a phaseout plan for the IPv6 Testing Address Allocation [TEST-NEW]. The IANA MUST reclaim the 3FFE::/16 prefix upon the date specified in section 2.0 👑

When the 6bone Testing Address Allocation gets reclaimed by the IANA, a lot of network operators are expected to filter it on their borders so these prefixes don't get misused 🛡️

Here's the tea 🍵 There's experience from the IPv4 world showing that filters like these may not get removed quickly if the address space gets reallocated. So it is recommended that the IANA keeps that in mind before reallocating it in a way that would require it to be routed globally on the current Internet 🌍

7. Authors' Addresses 🍓

Robert L. Fink

EMail: bob@thefinks.com


Robert M. Hinden
Nokia
313 Fairchild Drive
Mountain View, CA 94043
US

Phone: +1 650 625-2004
EMail: bob.hinden@nokia.com

8. Full Copyright Statement 💜

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and, except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 😭

Intellectual Property 🌈

The IETF takes no position on the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to apply to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document, or on whether any license under such rights might or might not be available. It also doesn't claim to have made any independent effort to find those rights. Info on the procedures for rights in RFC documents is in BCP 78 and BCP 79 📚

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat, any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt to get a general license or permission for implementers or users of this specification to use such proprietary rights can be found at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 🔗

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Send that info to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org 💌

Acknowledgement ⭐

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society 🫶