Re: [IPv6] [v6ops] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1?

>From an email exchange with Dave Thaler (Microsoft) back in 2015 when I
asked about this:

"I’m not in any hurry to see it removed (under the “if it ain’t broke don’t
fix it” principle).
Even the RFC section you cite says:
   Existing implementations and deployments MAY continue to use this
   prefix. "

So I don't see Microsoft removing this from the OS unless there is a
specific existing security exploit or concern that is demonstrated to be
exploitable.
Also, the draft you found has Dave listed as a co-author. Perhaps that
helps close the loop?

NOTE - I'm not speaking for Dave or Microsoft - just trying to provide some
context.

Out of my list of IPv6 asks for the Windows OS, this one isn't high on my
personal list to get "fixed". I feel it is a cosmetic issue more than
anything else at this point.

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 8:36 AM Nick Buraglio <buraglio@es.net> wrote:

> I have also heard through the grapevine that those pre-dated the
> deprecation of site-local and that there is "no plan to remove them". This
> is anecdotal, I have never seen reference to it, just side conversations I
> have had over the years.
>
>
> ----
> nb
>
> ᐧ
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 9:53 AM Dale W. Carder <dwcarder@es.net> wrote:
>
>> Thus spake Klaus Frank (klaus.frank@posteo.de) on Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at
>> 04:08:07AM +0000:
>> > does anyone know what RFC is responsible for the IPv6 DNS server
>> > configuration on all windows clients defaulting to fec0:0:0:ffff::1, I
>> was
>> > unable to find any. Nor is it listed in the iana special-purpose address
>> > registry.
>> >
>> > I however found a draft (draft-ietf-ipv6-0dns-discovery-07) from 2002,
>> but
>> > no actual RFC.
>>
>> That draft matches my memory.  Recall that was well before rfc5006
>> which was quite late to the party to address a glaring oversight
>> as the ra vs dhcpv6 holy wars raged on.
>>
>> Having well-known resolver addresses be site-local (and anycasted,
>> despite what the draft claims on that issue) could have been a
>> logical design pattern for local networks.
>>
>> But more generally, no two people could ever be expected to agree on
>> a common definition of what a "site" is.  rfc3879 documents the pain
>> very well.  (see a generalized incarnation of this issue in rfc8799).
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

-- 
Ed Horley
ed@hexabuild.io | (925) 876-6604
Advancing Cloud, IoT, and Security with IPv6
https://hexabuild.io
And check out the IPv6 Buzz Podcast at
https://packetpushers.net/series/ipv6-buzz/