IETF Logo Mail Archive

[IPv6]Re: [v6ops] Why I chose 1::/32 (Re: Re: Why not add loopback semantics to 2001:db8::/32?)

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Thu, 04 December 2025 05:32 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 E91D29513042 for <ipv6@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 21:32:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.599 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 3BAZ1ELEsl2E for <ipv6@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 21:32:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x536.google.com (mail-pg1-x536.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::536]) (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 493899512388 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 21:31:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x536.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-bdb6f9561f9so492807a12.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 21:31:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1764826294; x=1765431094; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=bOQxzx1EkHCEYjGh/F9z60bo6iW/oOke8riw17dhJOU=; b=LPUd6Ro79GZKIW9BpSJXCICBaTEFNCvCNzBPRZy14JZf4bWPTf2U0KRdckpPvtppFN 9lmuOPbCHmtCX+uaX0Mogq0J/ru3u36Q4goZc+NJejt1tFLV2mszR/B7PFs3M7ibVpsg KcwlvkHnA8MKBUtbNhPz9O9bhzvbxgbVr45y2m8N6FFgJwnG1yjRJgV5XNaywoskSl0e +HMhwUcaD2+U7WHcOD6v3t5p3J6WOMQiEH05Vt8NN7zDftxp7JV8T0JYgmcDe+oYhCA9 Vbqg1wKFC/8U3N40htlFB/6n6JsgF7EXGBIhBQu4F7jvHTNTk2/nr3MKx7hyvM3snXX6 OyIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1764826294; x=1765431094; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bOQxzx1EkHCEYjGh/F9z60bo6iW/oOke8riw17dhJOU=; b=S1ePWDrz/Y90J7JEhPgaCad/6ijf6uOuN6PEGAbbc9tor1gh6gbVxodIP3ArPWDcBP UddO4rmjqM52qoIVpphQhgW9cwMaK+MKbxPdY0OoExAQCtAWPLSsGPB4MfbxwZbmBw8C u659PM3b6//dhql4ob5eHu5wjBYNFVQIS7ZG4yqNbIC7421CUtKtI/s2zqAUUxIUG2fk tTMmY6mVDrv/SpLDLLURfM+VmflJn/gmaAk2G9LO34aQuZR9uw6qBBgdjy7S8Z7oCAOq rcZXS3xYZwA/1Y9Abvf4gu9NMk8NgSjm8mRREwYUdmwvNa4SdgxIlq3fLJkjlregwcY7 3+Ng==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXKdNHcTn9EqjXy/KvCd68IHP1uoY4gsf2a8xkRHsRcxG07FoovH1E+0VVg91s6HVVmbOY+@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxbHlMzFZLX8TAmSyZT9R2PBT21cZpyXbnICHfLn7bvXfSzctU1 G3AUNQJTDju5tz7qQDF4FT4GxQIHkKi6s7PvGA3gHQ5nYQ9Ki2ZoKp5jvVT8Q79yYxmO409zj/Z wAOxMC0W5zzMGlkDm5kGMz0Z7IgqoRQs=
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctlNtGX4ZnZfSjdq0tRLrv8cKJvnRF8Z/0v0JdRFJXFOCpYdojlnyhfgVt536w T69EiFAJFqG01P0Dl1jVk71NpyYCZHFe7cTk+bxaOo7Uu+OkEou5fR6ocPuEHm0KiddS7ejGRFN BnRMVwtspdwkgZQZhWfdAfLMDkm2Es5uW/aoeesmx1+GaWRcVu8NCEOOoV7ODfXSfSKADuN1hmd R6nglyM6KjELpJ5eqaaZjBxvxZOpt34cTN3qSoqFbAsfbEyymB5ec2HXVZbhERceonthQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHZDEjM7cZfYVatNBo5CtKjPR71ln0aN5hfOOYZBh3xJnjin5NLJPy4Pf/aWfVUq7ZGTAZoFwz/gaDNeGHpTCo=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:7022:4389:b0:11a:4b72:35e8 with SMTP id a92af1059eb24-11df0bd158dmr3627981c88.6.1764826294516; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 21:31:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAO42Z2xaZnsua3b0u3HFPVomy-kWP5YAd3Tu1zXy_Yb-NfhkqA@mail.gmail.com> <B4DC82F6-FEB9-4072-B0B3-4400654ED8B6@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <B4DC82F6-FEB9-4072-B0B3-4400654ED8B6@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2025 16:31:08 +1100
X-Gm-Features: AWmQ_bm27gVzwIQ0WhHkptA8C7VEun-IjT0PAG4r1nfP8TjdEaQbSQcVYk3977c
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2zY527bMZ3cC9ebDFAHt++-W5ONY7dNhZpLy5AeJDGMqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: 3IIVAQ3Z5MD6I4BUCP6PVTAUSWUFX5FR
X-Message-ID-Hash: 3IIVAQ3Z5MD6I4BUCP6PVTAUSWUFX5FR
X-MailFrom: markzzzsmith@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: David Farmer <farmer=40umn.edu@dmarc.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [IPv6]Re: [v6ops] Why I chose 1::/32 (Re: Re: Why not add loopback semantics to 2001:db8::/32?)
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group (6man)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/dCWnx_uNeAUdlAyj9sequyw1SEo>
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>

On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 at 16:10, Ole Trøan <otroan.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4 Dec 2025, at 03:25, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So I've suggested adding loopback semantics to 2001:db8::/32 because
> > it would satisfy the easy to remember requirement.
>
> If «loopback semantics» means link-local scope and do not forward in implementations, then that’s going to conflict with all those that use 2001:db8::/32 in labs.
>

Surely people aren't using a documentation prefix in labs?! That's
what ULAs are for.

I'm afraid I'm of the belief that if you do the wrong thing, you
should wear the consequences of your actions. If you're allowed to get
away with what you've done without any consequences, it only
encourages you to do the wrong thing again.

I know of a network that has already abused 1::/<something I can't
remember> for a discard prefix. Well if 1::/32 became the new loopback
prefix, that's their problem not the rest of the Internet's. They
should have used RFC6666's 0100::/64.

Regards,
Mark.


> Ole

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status