[IPv6]Re: [v6ops] New draft: "The IPv6 Loopback Address Prefix"

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Tue, 25 November 2025 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 F35099092065 for <ipv6@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 14:17:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.152 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, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 qUOChEpgoxTG for <ipv6@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 14:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B80789091FD6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 14:17:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4dGH9b0chpz2TdDT for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 16:17:07 -0600 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id axGfFD0mqRxd for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 16:17:06 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-il1-f197.google.com (mail-il1-f197.google.com [209.85.166.197]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4dGH9Z5kXtz2Tc8K for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 16:17:06 -0600 (CST)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 mta-p5.oit.umn.edu 4dGH9Z5kXtz2Tc8K
Authentication-Results: mta-p5.oit.umn.edu; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=umn.edu
Authentication-Results: mta-p5.oit.umn.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=umn.edu
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p5.oit.umn.edu 4dGH9Z5kXtz2Tc8K
Authentication-Results: mta-p5.oit.umn.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=umn.edu header.i=@umn.edu header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=google header.b=WtHHWYCI
Received: by mail-il1-f197.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-4337e3aca0cso62639915ab.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 14:17:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; t=1764109025; x=1764713825; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NTj6sPs8aDp8+9s9FT+ITZIHBpozpbGPpR2sN6EB008=; b=WtHHWYCIM5vqW3hblFmsSGV8U7464bbS8upcNFtnRZemzJ7WbACiaAOEdjFGXvn6WO BrzbYixwTiimqpidvz36u2MLqM6xsr7IP9f4oZS/uM3mx3w8By2lgQmkg1KeCyt3vMRp jY3yIwsA4tVHaAIYmwczpeqtMivOTd2Q6VxSUDEbp15I0lgfAbQbcCLvUBYqMMrbl9Q0 mtVwxeiQGdECiLaZVaLUCeJHcZ39fLrFpPwGuIt2qD0dMpI94RndCOU+o6/++M0YMJJ/ LvmBPor+jai02+upAGNlfqtdjCxaM9sCWHt9JTeAQxUN008UlVq57M7dbB6qOYo5pD9K 1XUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1764109025; x=1764713825; h=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=NTj6sPs8aDp8+9s9FT+ITZIHBpozpbGPpR2sN6EB008=; b=E7UvxjYvHkqy9Z8MqqoAWdlw2V17ACuy5Db1F2icsx3wHEm2kWLmysrXoc/dJmOUie Dagwm0FLaQOB9NCmART1Ju5+V/ELtr+0cSHMqufLGA0A2o4zc0GOf2P9IXE79P6j1Qm8 1kZSNCH5LtVOtiJYzPYOPIPAPhh6Csy/MZsj0XeqAv6ZuXgtFhKQbX5flSrsLvpYhQcB UjufIuUq88BCBXn0+J1XySGA9W6gp1b85x1P0RvJYdrHW4lC4D939gLmwpBvG4Pc0Rvk IbLCXJrKstDxyyvo0RnX5oXL+bpSrik13TY5KyVb8eivGTRgDI93/uw3s1ikb23aZLPN iWww==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyOEW0Vwn0My7e9cIgEL23J2n71sq7YCgC6pWjXH7Hql+8iJgez fE9T0bTy6hUvtUoqIeH+4U3AedgBYlppvRzX8p+fCZhjFAHUS9Ll2scXJs67Nsi1o6DI2Ace5HQ Lt8E1SshSu/hThgsX+5VvQ8grSdoGMMcnHYFaCVUtcd1hdu3Fj6NzG+sqAoozu3aO/gQcZ4u2Ll Uaig+b953PVBW+lXlt0GtX5VX3
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsoHBcIY9Ka1DJMmjtDZtirDuEkwyQeTWHyDMftMhGCInZGsJjcd00zV+wcgL/ 657l/UdOIBnVtctmFtZP4+FQur0YOK584Hgp32XHF2bJBqKPxI9tK4K1WOMLGD5sIyKteLVLNcO Zp45m+ljyRvYXSbtQLBtYbo6+6kgHA/WPNH2me8cC0SSFGD4/Z+P+L0V+t/CFBfZPwzxFwQ/CH0 Mj/cX5o+45sdxMDFPx71on0Tfg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:18ce:b0:434:96ea:ff65 with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-435b8e97913mr139839055ab.38.1764109025490; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 14:17:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHSysyqDlsjFsqor3zFoqaL/hX9Quw7OZDErnzLYYOhyRdRCPSGASfh74VvG3zNNevR07YtkSbXageFuqgrRBE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:18ce:b0:434:96ea:ff65 with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-435b8e97913mr139838915ab.38.1764109025155; Tue, 25 Nov 2025 14:17:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHw9_i+b=uZozstCAm1Kr52Pj-_Y_aCndHc0e703rMUr9va=iA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0CoVK-b=Lh2TsawuNdn0Ud1YE+c+-3H943BMOxc7o-bw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau0CoVK-b=Lh2TsawuNdn0Ud1YE+c+-3H943BMOxc7o-bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 16:16:49 -0600
X-Gm-Features: AWmQ_bmij8XSwWS-k4pjO0IbcDdHJexBPMOYGUbpGglbIq9IXsqMiGIOhsTLEcU
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau17Y86M1_DdKJTo3h_Saf=Fk5HKJA0y1JFPqrmWUJo9YQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ca2d6e064472a3fa"
Message-ID-Hash: VYS4RHXSSCUWDULX6LUGFHQDZH7MDDYM
X-Message-ID-Hash: VYS4RHXSSCUWDULX6LUGFHQDZH7MDDYM
X-MailFrom: farmer@umn.edu
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 <ipv6@ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, Geoff Huston <gih902@gmail.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [IPv6]Re: [v6ops] 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/rOk9H-ZtuIWEDNKBOt5_8SLZpm8>
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>

Also, I think there should be a discussion of how this overlaps with the
now-deprecated IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Addresses in section 2.5.5.1 of
RFC4291. In fact, it might be better to use ::/104, which maps to the IPv4
prefix 0.0.0.0/8.

This is probably the kiss of death for this idea, but to avoid confusion,
it might be better to produce a full RFC 4291bis and eliminate section
2.5.5.1 of RFC 4291. However, the last time we tried to do an RFC 4291bis,
it ended in total failure.

Thanks


On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 2:31 PM David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:

> While I'm not strongly opposed to this idea, I have always liked that the
> IPv6 loopback address is a singular address rather than a prefix, as in
> IPv4.
>
> I don't think it is a major issue, and there are more than enough IPv6
> addresses to define a lookback prefix for IPv6, instead of a singular
> loopback address. It won't cause a shortage by any means.
>
> I guess it is mostly a matter of taste. However, I would prefer a better
> justification than simply saying we did it that way in IPv4, which seems to
> be the primary justification.
>
> Note that if we go hard with this idea, the entire IPv6 loopback prefix
> should be added to the Locally-Served DNS Zones registry.
>
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/locally-served-dns-zones/locally-served-dns-zones.xhtml#ipv6
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 11:39 AM Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list -- v6ops@ietf.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to v6ops-leave@ietf.org
>>
>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================