IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ole Trøan <otroan.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 03 December 2025 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan.ietf@gmail.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 3D4179469208 for <ipv6@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Dec 2025 23:28:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 1wEt9g9LnJnO for <ipv6@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Dec 2025 23:28:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x134.google.com (mail-lf1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B536E9468FA7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Dec 2025 23:27:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x134.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-596ba07504dso5442424e87.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 23:27:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1764746844; x=1765351644; darn=ietf.org; h=to:cc:date:message-id:subject:mime-version:from :content-transfer-encoding:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=oBpJyte2H5ilfl7nH8QsaxVdTHKPKqGZXyVyD7Eqg0U=; b=Q8hlUSZhl4eogZbXdRoMTvCe2Ri2m96oIpRQTbRjYI/djpnyyY3gQnrMLkmFWFptpG 9GznlWkizNZmrP8+wW/wRhLXmB6c8Cvvio34UkqvWsDuoefY1JSe17Q9eogVZXJJ9zf9 HiUzEUtqQRUgFKoQpnImAJvsmtBjCblImPGnVjiqWomhm7LsMGNMy2xBqC/C98WmfWLn KfAS4LbMEbY9MhAOTc9OqXcvtpeekCbZcqvEFcjg2XjKBDG6DhzHjXbmyn16hFRy+bkE NOXxX+nXDfICbAZG8v1PglxY/YtHysHxROkkEYCeGtw7ClyUB88YuuRotObIiuiegZJV zh/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1764746844; x=1765351644; h=to:cc:date:message-id:subject:mime-version:from :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=oBpJyte2H5ilfl7nH8QsaxVdTHKPKqGZXyVyD7Eqg0U=; b=VRgcwO5YW6GEgc9Jnrr1DipJ9wadFH5lxb8gHC73A72z3sj+ZOwvUkwAGqB60ooer0 HV9MTnfBlOIWmzp5Aj0VM/kicBplWhd9+qRhZsocFSCHguWgecZLRhVslUC3ObshF8jl GqYUJe7ZbOtiNMbtCDOSoqpC71JnwheHfE6JrMNCkLh64cYS2YNQK85aBaVqvKfMCFV6 zidDreQfI5wDVBJlAzQqTs/7TjoLs6pLSkem1g9HnOGgBnLQSnO2aTXDZ/ppn+kGllqg tN7NFuKIFaFl6kf3ImMyDGNANnzQlhQoz4hdK6TqjYt4aUVSNWtTPgfwDcUvVjoZJd5a m+Hw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwZ9Wyg+Nz6qpHa2zF6c+6eKR92uVudoKwNwXhAGwoY69NfFwwY pFdsrCv+2YPwcgKH9YBIOytEA4RjR8LL7EdaOggVoDLEDf3OMBMdQ7PDj3ARiA==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvs3MidnCpp7g3Hq/hFPM8krH8kpleq1PrGZLVbhQAHR0jtj331IoTOlap/PHZ rKPdQpL62hxiXnMMwc4LIC1xFJjbgYe62/b9uiYeCTSwvappafo0lC+QLWOSQf+0G4yEp9XJrNF t6c3SF024soyKebwOALRs7e7F9yWNjX64LBrLK72E5I14F6DHLZyX3A6EfiDl9i7g1iHsPDYE8G FpeH7VTgPJGqifgXA1q+nVNTLWAcZW5Jai1IV8iaO77Ywx5UlczSrIuTVsJmNJ9j0dJp3Ch61c7 QHb/h70D0yXsU5Kp8tsoBvSwhfZKw0wVFuFOh1rI6sKkoYEzYlr7ip2eL938AjqDiS5QBtpHgqX /zJL43drMh7OrNl3FkvlpGABRQM7C3E9a3M4670iVTvO+nJ6wM2PcX6d81cJGzT/luGKj7lZtH6 nVADw5KTHVMVxgTSFkljmBVZBWocUrDbZ/QFjJRWoEcDe9WzC2N9vBzw0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFqGcldpVn+pZf1o40BfWUUa4lzrXBNLbjtjEyLdgjMNPwoS+hMDFR9tskDXeAra8A54nwybQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:a8e:b0:593:f74:90c1 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-597d3fe0b68mr613341e87.42.1764746844141; Tue, 02 Dec 2025 23:27:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2001:4650:c3ed:37a:9e2a:f334:61dc:ff10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2adb3069b0e04-596bf8a7c89sm5403980e87.10.2025.12.02.23.27.23 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 02 Dec 2025 23:27:23 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Trøan <otroan.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Message-Id: <014DE34D-5205-4108-8EA0-5DE6E5730EEE@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:27:13 +0100
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (23B85)
Message-ID-Hash: 7KYIUHK2EGW6YTYJDYWUMV4BJSPKIMBU
X-Message-ID-Hash: 7KYIUHK2EGW6YTYJDYWUMV4BJSPKIMBU
X-MailFrom: otroan.ietf@gmail.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: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [IPv6]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/V4XQBvL9V9lYidL6uEGqjCqHz_w>
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>

Brian,

> On 3 Dec 2025, at 07:59, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't think so. I think Bob's argument is just another version of "almost any address range would work for this purpose; it doesn't have to be special."

Doesn’t that depend on how we define loopback prefix behavior? I could not find that specified in either of the drafts.

The current loopback address is automatically plumbed into existing implementations.
- any traffic destined to the loopback address will be sent to the node itself (ie up the host stack). Is that the behavior proposed for the loopback prefix? Without any address configuration any packet with a DA of loopback prefix is sent up the host stack?
- routers do not forward any packets with a loopback source. This is hard coded in forwarding paths.

How do the proponents of this idea intend for this to work? The suggestions of using an arbitrary prefix seems to imply people think no implementation changes are needed??

Cheers,
Ole

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status