Re: I-D Action: draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost-00.txt

"John Levine" <> Tue, 27 September 2016 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E9A912B178 for <>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O2H6lkmU6WEe for <>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B5DD12B347 for <>; Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22424 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2016 18:49:05 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 27 Sep 2016 18:49:05 -0000
Date: 27 Sep 2016 18:48:45 -0000
Message-ID: <20160927184845.5034.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 18:49:20 -0000

>> As this proposal is in the name of consistency, is there an argument we
>> should be strict and explicitly define *which* loopback address DNS servers
>> must return when queried?
>I was intentionally vague on that point, as one of the scenarios raised in
> was a developer
>who was pointing `project1.localhost` to, and
>`project2.localhost` to in /etc/hosts (and presumably had a
>server configured accordingly). It seems like that's a reasonable thing to
>support. Any loopback address is fine with me.

I use multiple IPv4 127/8 addresses all the time.  For example, I run
a funky local stunt DNS server on and configure my local DNS
cache to use it for a branch of the name tree.  So yes, any loopback
address will do.  (We can save the question about a link-local IPv6
address on a loopback interface for later.)