IETF Logo Mail Archive

[IPv6]Re: [v6ops] Re: New draft: "The IPv6 Loopback Address Prefix"

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Wed, 26 November 2025 05:53 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ipv6@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E29690CE50D; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 21:53:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=delong.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v7KU4EjyZGqt; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 21:53:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88D390CE508; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 21:53:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([IPv6:2607:fb90:3797:df54:8df2:3f8f:6efb:d398]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.18.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 5AQ5r3rX1064598 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 26 Nov 2025 05:53:04 GMT
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 5AQ5r3rX1064598
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1764136384; bh=OX34lugdfGFYZEmGgYkjCAdCR6wNeLzL8pZCKVgqA5A=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:From; b=vGh03E8Uqqgd8tvQntBLhykXZ2e7u8y03AZnUwPqiaRDeZngHdezbgnpUTCjCm/Gb xaWAGwWQcweXTwpdYELx00VtEXrNG4ajMycQmTEpz8bB54lOJDw6syYcNIASAn8fWW ZjHruQODcqGPkcgQ7mBoDzRhae8wN9YhyreP3NfQ=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 21:52:53 -0800
Message-Id: <FB37B706-6CE3-4243-B445-4ABE1F1D315F@delong.com>
References: <7a79a3df-c385-469d-a5f2-4a13eb15c62b@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7a79a3df-c385-469d-a5f2-4a13eb15c62b@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (22G100)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Wed, 26 Nov 2025 05:53:04 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID-Hash: VBHOXXQ6OOIGQNOC3AL4772MFTKJFEE4
X-Message-ID-Hash: VBHOXXQ6OOIGQNOC3AL4772MFTKJFEE4
X-MailFrom: owen@delong.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ipv6.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, Geoff Huston <gih902@gmail.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [IPv6]Re: [v6ops] Re: New draft: "The IPv6 Loopback Address Prefix"
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group (6man)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SvdGf7ndck2WIX2NI3HxxfZt08w>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ipv6-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ipv6-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ipv6-leave@ietf.org>

> By the way, there is a difference between IPv4 and IPv6 that the draft doesn't mention. IPv4 addresses are assigned to the host. IPv6 addresses are assigned to a specific interface. There's a virtual loopback interface in IPv6 implementations, which presumably will "own" the whole proposed /96. That should be mentioned.

What are you talking about, Brian?

All of my interfaces on Linux, BSD, MacOS, JunOS, and any other platform I’ve encountered have assigned both v4 abd v6 addresses to the individual interface and not the host.  While it’s true that there is some ambiguity in this regard for DCHPv4, the end result is still that the assigned address ends up assigned to a specific interface and not the entire host. 

Owen

v2.40.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status