[IPv6]Request for WG Adoption for draft-kumari-ipv6-loopback-01

[Geoff Huston <[e-mail]>]

Hi 6man chairs,

Warren and I asked the chairs to consider WG adoption of this draft back at the start of December '25. We did not receive a response to this request so it seems likely that the request has fallen through the cracks. Could we please request the chairs to consider this request for WG adoption?

thanks,

  Geoff and Warren






On 2 Dec 2025, at 3:02 am, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:

[ - V6OPS, +6MAN Chairs ]

Dear 6MAN chairs,

The authors would like to request adoption of this document.

It is clear that there is still work needed before the document is ready for publication, but it's also clear that there is significant interest in the topic.

It would be helpful for the document to have a designated home - I had originally CCed V6OPS, and there has been significant discussion there too..

Thanks in advance,
W




On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:38 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Dear 6MAN and V6OPS,

Geoff Huston and I have just submitted draft-kumari-ipv6-loopback - "The IPv6 Loopback Address Prefix"<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumari-ipv6-loopback/>

We believe that it is within the 6MAN charter ("The 6man working group is responsible for the maintenance, upkeep, and advancement of the IPv6 protocol specifications and addressing architecture."), but I have CCed V6OPS as well, as it is clearly operational as well.

Abstract:
"This document updates the IP Version 6 Address Architecture to define the IPv6 address prefix ::/32 as the Loopback address prefix."

Basically, this document expands the single loopback address ::1/128 into a prefix.

Yes, we are aware that there have been some previous discussions[0] on the need (or lack thereof!) of a loopback prefix in IPv6, but we believe that they are worth revisiting.

There are a number of situations in which having more than a single address is helpful; an obvious example of this is Dockers/k8s use of 127.0.0.11 for the DNS resolver, SPAM RBL use of the last octet on 127.0.0.x to encode the type of SPAM. It is also relatively common it use this for inter-service communication in container environments.

It is also a common practice to bind different services to different addresses in the IPv4 loopback space to allow for scaling (avoiding the "Port already in use" issue), testing, etc.  Yes, these can be somewhat emulated with ULAs and / or additional interfaces and scopes, but they are all more complicated, and much more likely to result in leakage or collision.

Another, more recent example is the ICANN Public Comment on "Name Collision IPv6 Research Study" and proposed use of ::ffff:7f00:3535 [1] - if there was a loopback prefix this would have been a better option[2]


We expect a fairly robust discussion :-),
W

[0]: I know I've seen them, but I quick search of my mail was unable to find these — the authors are more than happy to link to previous documents, etc.

[1]: See long threads on 6MAN https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-HrYFMwHhsUWYxSXsFIkLpF_Qgk/ and V6OPS.

[2]: Solving the technical concerns, but not necessarily the policy ones.