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 10:54 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2015, at 6:53, 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.

Regards,
Brian