Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses

["Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I think what you're referring to is the use of "loopback interfaces". The loopback addresses Juergen was referring to do not belong to loopback interfaces. 

Regards,
Reshad.


On 2020-07-20, 11:30 AM, "tom petch" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]>
    Sent: 20 July 2020 14:39

    I don't understand the comment "...implementation choice of one manufacturer."

    <tp>
    Go back to the early specifications of IPv4 routers and routing protocols, which are still the ones we use today, and loopback was a state into which an interface could be put, with a loop back in hardware or software, often used for testing.  A router had a router id, a 32 bit number with no syntax.  One major manufacturer conflated parts of this and created a virtual address  or addresses which could be used to send and receive packets for the router, as opposed to an interface on the router, which had no physical manifestation; fine until they called it the loopback address(es) which, sadly, caught on and many people, included those writing IETF I-D think that the router id can only be such a routable address.  Some even think that there can only be one such address on a box, as opposed to one for network management, one for the control plane and so on.  Not so.

    Tom Petch.

    As for the details, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-00

    Regards,
    Reshad.


    On 2020-07-20, 4:47 AM, "netmod on behalf of tom petch" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

        I am not a fan of loopback seeing it as the implementation choice of one manufacturer.  On the other hand, the IETF has defined documentation addresses which many if not most writers of examples for YANG modules seem unaware of so if we add anything, I would add those.

        Tom Petch

        From: netmod <[e-mail]> on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>
        Sent: 17 July 2020 20:25

          - There was a request to add types for loopback addresses
            (127.0.0.0/8 and ::1/128).

          - This is related to an effort to define a YANG module for MPLS LSP
            Ping (RFC 8029) but the details are unclear, i.e., what is exactly
            needed and how such a type will be used and whether there is a
            common need for types for loopback addresses.

          - Proposal: do not add such types at this point in time

        --
        Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
        Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
        Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

        _______________________________________________
        netmod mailing list
        [e-mail]
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

        _______________________________________________
        netmod mailing list
        [e-mail]
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod