Re: Loopback interface terminology issue

Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> Sat, 14 October 2017 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <kauer@biplane.com.au>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42554133158 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.081
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YsYczzryTQVD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipmail03.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail03.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1625D133057 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.142]) ([150.101.127.187]) by ipmail03.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 14 Oct 2017 12:11:14 +1030
Message-ID: <1507945273.2487.70.camel@biplane.com.au>
Subject: Re: Loopback interface terminology issue
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:41:13 +1100
In-Reply-To: <4998af7c-700d-369d-f64f-a8f4ea585084@gmail.com>
References: <4998af7c-700d-369d-f64f-a8f4ea585084@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5enlO7cFXJ8JpN4F_9HdnaWh8gM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 01:41:20 -0000

On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 14:11 +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> (RFC 4291, section 2.5.3). The text only mentions the loopback
> address ::1.

Need to stay clear on the difference between a loopback interface and
the concept of localhost.

::1 is the localhost address; use it, and you are talking to "this host
right here". It doesn't have to be on a loopback interface, but it
generally makes sense for it to be, because a device may have no real
network interfaces at all, but you still want to be able to talk to
services running on it.

And similarly, loopback interfaces do not necessarily have to have a
localhost address on them. You can have lots of loopback interfaces on
a host, and they present variations of "this host right here" e.g. by
participating in different routing schemes or having particular
services on them. The interface is not the canonical identity of the
host, the localhost address is. That is ::1 in IPv6.

Things have become confused over the years because of the very strong
convention that "the" localhost address is on a loopback interface.

The fact that there is only one (1) localhost address in IPv6 vs the
entire /8 reserved in IPv4 is, I always thought, specifically to make
the distinction clear.

Or maybe it's just me.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: A52E F6B9 708B 51C4 85E6 1634 0571 ADF9 3C1C 6A3A
Old fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B