Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses

Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> Mon, 20 July 2020 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796F03A0B2E; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 07:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CwC03QIsM1l7; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 07:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.uni-kl.de (mailgw1.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:120::220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D59D3A0B17; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 07:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:ef34:0:ff:fe00:65]) by mailgw1.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id 06KEUFUm005162 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Jul 2020 16:30:16 +0200
Received: from sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id 06KEUFfF011433 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 20 Jul 2020 16:30:15 +0200
Received: (from auerswal@localhost) by sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id 06KEUFGu011432; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 16:30:15 +0200
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 16:30:15 +0200
From: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Message-ID: <20200720143015.GA9358@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
References: <20200717192556.63e7gfbbrn2qyqzo@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <AM6PR07MB52220AD16FAC337D4F89A674A07B0@AM6PR07MB5222.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <64A58592-5FD0-4752-8069-E59E62C3F699@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <64A58592-5FD0-4752-8069-E59E62C3F699@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/rLOImsHQOxhGq0pfC1C7IVxe2gU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] rfc6991bis: loopback addresses
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 14:30:24 -0000

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" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ietfc@btconnect.com> 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 <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
>     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: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>     Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>