Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses

[Erik Auerswald <[e-mail]>]

Hello Reshad,

while the I-D draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-00 only specifies ::1/128
as IPv6 loopback address, RFC 8029 sections 2.1., 3.4.1.1.1., and 4.3.
specify to use the IPv4 loopback range as IP4-mapped IPv6 addresses for
IPv6 MPLS echo request UDP packets, not the IPv6 loopback address ::1/128.

This seems to be inconsistent to me.

Best regards,
Erik

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 01:39:02PM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
> I don't understand the comment "...implementation choice of one manufacturer."
> 
> 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/>