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

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

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.

--Paul Hoffman