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

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

On 9/30/15 11:18 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2015, at 8:12, Brian Haberman wrote:
> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> I can't decide if I should ballot Yes because this document does a good
>>>> job of describing how to deploy this approach or Abstain because the
>>>> fragility introduced in this approach appears to be untenable.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, can someone explain why this document is stating a
>>>> requirement to deploy this approach with IPv4 only?
>>>
>>> Yes. Given that this is running on loopback, it doesn't matter if the
>>> service is running on either the v4 or v6 loopback address. Unless a
>>> system running this service has absolutely no v4 at all (it doesn't even
>>> need to be offering v4 service to customers), the v4 loopback address is
>>> sufficient.
>>>
>>> There seems to be wide disagreement about what is the v6 loopback
>>> address: some of these addresses exist on some v6 systems but not
>>> others, or so we were told. If there is a v6 loopback address that is
>>> universally deployed (as 127/8 is for v4), we can add it, although it
>>> won't actually make this more deployable.
>>>
>>> --Paul Hoffman
>>
>> I am not sure how much clearer the definition of IPv6 loopback could be
>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.3).  Of course, if it
>> is an implementation issue, there is not much the IETF can do.
>>
>> Thanks for the quick response.
> 
> If the WG agrees that 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 is always present, we can
> certainly add that to the document. I now cannot find any on-list
> mention of why this isn't useful in all v6-capable systems, so it might
> have been a hallway conversation.


It seems like the WG can cover both address families by simply making
these changes:

OLD:

   o  The system MUST be able to run an authoritative server on one of
      the IPv4 loopback addresses (that is, an address in the range
      127/8).

NEW:

   o  The system MUST be able to run an authoritative server on one of
      the loopback addresses (that is, an address in the range
      127/8 for IPv4 or ::1 in IPv6).

OLD:

   2.  Start the authoritative server with the root zone on a loopback
       address that is not in use.  This would typically be 127.0.0.1,
       but if that address is in use, any address in 127/8 is
       acceptable.

NEW:

   2.  Start the authoritative server with the root zone on a loopback
       address.  This would typically be 127.0.0.1 in IPv4 or ::1 in
       IPv6.

Why does the document say that the address should not be in use?

Brian