Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Oct 2015 17:45:03 -0000

>> Uh, no.  The *only* loopback address is ::1.  The rest of 0000::/8 is reserved.
>
>Anything is a loopback address if you alias it on your loopback interface.
>
>::2 was only intended as an example (that's why I said "salt to taste"),
>but it was not a particularly well-chosen one.

On your system, I'm sure it works fine.  On other systems that
implement IPv6 in other ways, maybe not.  I have a Windows 7 box and
as far as I can tell it doesn't even have a loopback interface, rather
some special case for 127/8 and ::1.  (Not ::2, I checked.)

It seems to me a rather poor idea for an IETF document to advise
people to use addresses that IETF standards documents say are
reserved.

R's,
John

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:51:39 -0700

> On Oct 1, 2015, at 10:45 AM, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> implement IPv6 in other ways, maybe not.

Which is why I think

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ipversion6-loopback-prefix-00

should be resurrected (not directly relevant to DNSOP of course).

Regards,
-drc

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Oct 2015 13:59:20 -0400

> should be resurrected (not directly relevant to DNSOP of course).

Seems like a good idea.  I've got a dozen v4 loopback addresses on my 
server doing various useful things.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:59:43 -0500

Strong +1. This is an obvious, useful, rational and alas, strictly
irrelevant point. Which I agree with.

-G

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:51 PM, David Conrad <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>