Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1?

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

Furthermore, based on RFC 6724 Address Selection, all other known DNS
server addresses will be tried before these. They are the last resort, and
therefore, they probably won't hurt anything, not that they are likely to
help much, either.

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 1:29 PM Ed Horley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> From an email exchange with Dave Thaler (Microsoft) back in 2015 when I
> asked about this:
>
> "I’m not in any hurry to see it removed (under the “if it ain’t broke
> don’t fix it” principle).
> Even the RFC section you cite says:
>    Existing implementations and deployments MAY continue to use this
>    prefix. "
>
> So I don't see Microsoft removing this from the OS unless there is a
> specific existing security exploit or concern that is demonstrated to be
> exploitable.
> Also, the draft you found has Dave listed as a co-author. Perhaps that
> helps close the loop?
>
> NOTE - I'm not speaking for Dave or Microsoft - just trying to provide
> some context.
>
> Out of my list of IPv6 asks for the Windows OS, this one isn't high on my
> personal list to get "fixed". I feel it is a cosmetic issue more than
> anything else at this point.
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 8:36 AM Nick Buraglio <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I have also heard through the grapevine that those pre-dated the
>> deprecation of site-local and that there is "no plan to remove them". This
>> is anecdotal, I have never seen reference to it, just side conversations I
>> have had over the years.
>>
>>
>> ----
>> nb
>>
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 9:53 AM Dale W. Carder <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thus spake Klaus Frank ([e-mail]) on Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at
>>> 04:08:07AM +0000:
>>> > does anyone know what RFC is responsible for the IPv6 DNS server
>>> > configuration on all windows clients defaulting to fec0:0:0:ffff::1, I
>>> was
>>> > unable to find any. Nor is it listed in the iana special-purpose
>>> address
>>> > registry.
>>> >
>>> > I however found a draft (draft-ietf-ipv6-0dns-discovery-07) from 2002,
>>> but
>>> > no actual RFC.
>>>
>>> That draft matches my memory.  Recall that was well before rfc5006
>>> which was quite late to the party to address a glaring oversight
>>> as the ra vs dhcpv6 holy wars raged on.
>>>
>>> Having well-known resolver addresses be site-local (and anycasted,
>>> despite what the draft claims on that issue) could have been a
>>> logical design pattern for local networks.
>>>
>>> But more generally, no two people could ever be expected to agree on
>>> a common definition of what a "site" is.  rfc3879 documents the pain
>>> very well.  (see a generalized incarnation of this issue in rfc8799).
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
> --
> Ed Horley
> [e-mail] | [phone]
> Advancing Cloud, IoT, and Security with IPv6
> https://hexabuild.io
> And check out the IPv6 Buzz Podcast at
> https://packetpushers.net/series/ipv6-buzz/
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================