Loopback interface terminology issue
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 14 October 2017 01:11 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 49A07132D17 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ZrmgH0wCR0ol for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg0-x231.google.com (mail-pg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A003132332 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-x231.google.com with SMTP id r25so2462682pgn.4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=to:from:subject:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lvj4ObMWrZgIC7DQcvN/rYvPKj9sIxcjBkWjoi2QNPM=; b=u+9TtZYFpfwMmwtYMQrogn1zN3X5JIoGDBeQUFFY+yWyNWWRiko+5zpLgxHRLCvhPo Dc7PjdY/puaH0pGf7fzKcH5JyuKx+05g2t0nM1T8PDdT13SXAw0rXcnduvxeU2j+SWOe bpKg1CgPToxaw5uHtLhV+wHcaRyaXdG5x4ZjEMOTv1RXTVaz/sFiOlkOO2BwfAvX1+0q YulJPBR9094EnlvFIrJbXdrU8K5smk4HQQPCAy2xp5Fq4Nap/ioE1ZyTQ+w4s2gwHZVE L+2ieotyn0Qbtu3U7j2yQj0BqD/Viv/y0hbSFsq/jUNoLr3jpX0vlMSNTvOlusF+KMOI 0cAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:from:subject:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lvj4ObMWrZgIC7DQcvN/rYvPKj9sIxcjBkWjoi2QNPM=; b=BUbxIeQHJfKKKChncXQOovJdhUkGYOLpeb/Gvy33a62McCM/hP+acDokbLKaSA0NWd T18yMpGaSgW/06oa/udt3vUndbD2q5zDZXWYw4xZnhnztVXHjlaeDzLo+5+ytCPcnuz0 6m5YryD4VY4+0EABSH4p0VNrTrKHgLJVWme+G3Wd5CUSQcQO3v7VGUKzYL4rl6yrFuqM dwZOllTUwKuYg5P26f/iZlLp08oYdZgzkVqsYu81KpSR2owF+1cwvD+ybVBy9cS96+Js yQchMYmskhFzKMO6YT+TdBmrzTMF7v+Bwd6T8AFYSidDVI3O55zoQJkNuyIspI/Kj5Lh a3zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWZ+MsJdwagmcl8ETPL5HXt+XBDZHiuggCcb0fPcnKTdUOKCjMq dAzVZo5NEszmAZDTpVqfJqPBng==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QB+/Apfsn66Ad2WFl7BeLzOT4UexIfabwaPo+e+wJLPu+zGH7q0iQKdfi7KNPeOwcp78BBd1g==
X-Received: by 10.101.77.144 with SMTP id p16mr2664403pgq.226.1507943508215; Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6d3c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6d3c:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v22sm4710783pgb.65.2017.10.13.18.11.45 for <ipv6@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Oct 2017 18:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
To: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Loopback interface terminology issue
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <4998af7c-700d-369d-f64f-a8f4ea585084@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 14:11:54 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/U0QzAWpZTypF8gyZZ8HPfXZLOPM>
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 01:11:50 -0000
Hi, This come rather late in the day, but it results from some wordsmithing difficulties in a draft in another WG: The IPv6 specs are very clear that an address is assigned to an interface, not to a node, but they don't say anywhere that non-loopback addresses may be assigned to the loopback interface. However, sometimes as a practical matter, it's necessary to assign a routeable address (GUA or ULA) that is not created via a specific IPv6 interface. Conventionally, that is done by assigning it to the loopback interface. However, the only place I have found that defines 'loopback interface' for IPv6 is in the addressing architecture: 'a virtual interface (typically called the "loopback interface") to an imaginary link that goes nowhere.' (RFC 4291, section 2.5.3). The text only mentions the loopback address ::1. Do people agree with something like the following? 'Note that other forms of unicast IPv6 address may be assigned to the loopback interface, in cases where an address is assigned to the node without being assigned to the interface to a specific link.' This is after all common practice in various operating systems; we just never documented it, as far as I know. Regards Brian Carpenter
- Loopback interface terminology issue Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Karl Auer
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue David Farmer
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Toerless Eckert
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Mark Andrews
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Toerless Eckert
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Mark Smith
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Ole Troan
- RE: Loopback interface terminology issue Templin, Fred L
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue 神明達哉
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Toerless Eckert
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue 神明達哉
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Toerless Eckert
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Loopback interface terminology issue Templin, Fred L
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Toerless Eckert
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Loopback interface terminology issue Templin, Fred L
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue joel jaeggli
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Michael Richardson
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Michael Richardson
- RE: Loopback interface terminology issue Templin, Fred L
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Michael Richardson
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue tom p.
- RE: Loopback interface terminology issue Templin, Fred L
- Re: Loopback interface terminology issue Toerless Eckert
- RE: Loopback interface terminology issue Templin, Fred L