Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-ipversion6-loopback-prefix-00.txt

[Mark ZZZ Smith <[e-mail]>]

Hmm, regarding the comment about not reading the draft, apologies for that, I thought I was responding to somebody else who I thought should have read the draft before because of their previous objections.

In my latest email to you I've explained why I think designating semantic meaning on local values and then expecting other external parties to respect those in effect now non-local values causes problems.




----- Original Message -----
From: David Conrad <[e-mail]>
To: Mark ZZZ Smith <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2015, 12:43
Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-ipversion6-loopback-prefix-00.txt

Mark,

> Trying to place global significance on values within 127, as ICANN have attempted to do with 127.0.53.53, violates the host local scope of 127/8.

No it doesn't.  In fact, the whole reason 127/8 was chosen was precisely because it was guaranteed to be "host local" scope, in an effort to ensure (as much as anything on the Internet can be ensured, which unfortunately isn't 100%) that traffic destined to the answer returned by an "A" query for a newly delegated top-level domain wouldn't leak and thus constitute "controlled exfiltration" (to use Verisign's terminology).

Unfortunately, as IPv6 does not appear to have a direct analog to IPv4's loopback prefix, we simply punted figuring the number of v6 only sites that would be querying new gTLDs to be minimal (at least for the current crop of new gTLDs).

> Quite frankly, I'm starting to think you haven't read the draft.

Well, it did expire 18 months ago. Perhaps a refresh is warranted?  I, for one, would support moving it forward (albeit I'm not entirely sure a /32 is warranted: I'd think a /64 would be sufficient for "host local" scope).  And don't worry, I'd be supporting it for loopback functionality, not for the "flag" function we used 127.0.53.53 for (I've been convinced there are better ways to do that in IPv6) :).

Regards,
-drc
(ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself)