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

[Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 11:31 PM Mark Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 at 16:10, Ole Trøan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 4 Dec 2025, at 03:25, Mark Smith <[e-mail]> 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.
>
> Doc space is definitely in use in labs. As we discussed at length for
6724-update, ULA in its current implementation is insufficient for any dual
stack network that involves a device that does not have the exposed
capability to adjust the SA selection process, which as of today, is MacOS
and nearly all embedded systems. Much of what is in 6724-update was taken
from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-horley-v6ops-lab-03 where
we requested some lab space. Fixing ULA to support known-local addresses
this issue, but the document is currently stuck in RFC Editor due to a
nested dependency.


> 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
>