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

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Tue, 17 February 2015 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD75C1A89B9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:06:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.608
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 UqjvxgXzgc-l for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:06:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs-a.tc.umn.edu (vs-a.tc.umn.edu [134.84.119.220]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BB81A89C5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:06:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com (mail-ig0-f169.google.com [209.85.213.169]) by vs-a.tc.umn.edu (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:06:11 -0600 (CST)
X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] mail-ig0-f169.google.com [209.85.213.169] #+LO+TS+TR
X-Umn-Classification: local
Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hl2so42745196igb.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:06:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:message-id :content-transfer-encoding:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=WUW0kHC0FbBgA1piU084BZxDCb6WdXCnvY5CNhVoXrk=; b=l6saoq15p3tdh2usv/01OD64kZURbQ5A9egoVSPvWjt9jLu4cJY83lNFiH5LiV3Rht /HtypIpAkl0hTZ+uXgZn2oVLmYdpVJsC4W88772DmACCYeuzh1cTnol2uuUU1imfTTxe GmqdzaY0ZauvDHO/zyHH28U96DMbMSwHwqd/Y=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=WUW0kHC0FbBgA1piU084BZxDCb6WdXCnvY5CNhVoXrk=; b=CNa/SFYO7WBQdaVPK85cbQ3am+9RhGXlUIYFL7bzJ1/fE9VrnrkEA1uQIyNkt9h/ca 52ybMZOzf9qSlu386I9xs5xuFCFnS+Sm2PpOXB/lEcKkgtDeJ1gilVcUUIehDtVEd9qk t0fOmuw20Jlk/lQ1ICcsGIllpVOO1tir1m3UjinmDAcKgN2akrDuSNLxYJ/tHHd1c2N8 Qvh6+8klm+W/FTvMla+nc34KvEZCG1TRKW2B6hS853qwRymSg5vEQbU9IofJ1vErM7wu Mr4DeguItib2bisyFxmTozXAQ0LaE2QuYGOOzlxG0qCtVU2JnmXbIgp5H/OZtmQiXQh6 bpYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlGoD/Cl9ghPuapVspwURAPBv64WpP5J4Z7RfURRb+rRDtd4Nz4Khdxv8ESBiWb087K7/rQQ4YKNX2uARN1wI1tlHqVJH3MBP2HyUwwBsHRrKrlhaeggD4A6Td3loAuBeNf5qHU
X-Received: by 10.107.15.96 with SMTP id x93mr36505330ioi.75.1424185571422; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:06:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.107.15.96 with SMTP id x93mr36505312ioi.75.1424185571236; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:06:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.16] (c-75-73-121-154.hsd1.mn.comcast.net. [75.73.121.154]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b1sm10217744igl.7.2015.02.17.07.06.09 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:06:10 -0800 (PST)
References: <CAAedzxq9cy2NjR98RQ=Z2uWGM=DuCKcBmnOV2r1iDhd1G5F0Kw@mail.gmail.com> <602226231.6806482.1424078950598.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <DED2296C-010C-4B75-94DC-028C0FA19E6F@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <DED2296C-010C-4B75-94DC-028C0FA19E6F@virtualized.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-01696D7B-2582-4E94-9678-AA56F9910BF4"
Message-Id: <12A09714-DA9D-4A75-8281-6D79437D3155@umn.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12B466)
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:06:08 -0600
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/T8AFyQPVuDQdlO_4lRHBqYcVfPc>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-ipversion6-loopback-prefix-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:06:24 -0000

> On Feb 16, 2015, at 17:04, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> 
>> Note that the above 127.0.53.53 address is not reserved in IANA's IPv4 special address registry. It should be,
> 
> Could you explain why?
> 
> A number of RBLs use localhost addresses as flags to designate different forms of block lists (e.g., https://www.spamhaus.org/zen/). Do you believe those should be registered in the IANA IPv4 special address registry?

No, but nothing says I have to use any of those RBLs either, their use is completely voluntary, I locally choose to use those semantics or not.  As long as I don't query those RBLs I can ignore those semantics.  And, there at least is an informational RFC discussing this use too, RFC5782. 

However, the very name given to the technique "controlled interruption", makes it quite clear there is nothing voluntary about it.  ICANN is applying this semantics to me and everyone else.  Now I'll admit, if I'm getting this I chose to locally use a unassigned TLD.  While I personally think that is an extremely bad idea, nothing explicitly said it was invalid either.   Personally I think the old saying, "two wrongs don't make a right", applies to this one.  But that's mostly spilt milk, maybe slightly sour spilt milk, but spilt none the less. :)

On the other hand, the way this address talked about on ICANN's website "Special IP Address (127.0.53.53)" at the very least sure sounds a lot like it belongs in the registry discussed above, even if it probably doesn't.  Maybe a disclaimer saying that is just a loopback address like any other in 127.0.0.0/8 and that it may have other legitimate local uses too, would be in order.   

>> If ICANN want to do the above for IPv6, they should instead reserve a new IPv6 prefix, similar to how RFC6666 defines a special purpose discard prefix.
> 
> OK.  However, for clarity, this isn't specifically about "Controlled Interruption" or what ICANN "wants". It is about trying to have the same sort of facility that is available in IPv4 for IPv6.
> 
> Is there some reason I'm unaware of why IPv6 does not have a loopback prefix that allows a network of more than one host like IPv4?

Yea, there is a reason, we couldn't develop consensus for it.  And, from what I've heard on this thread so far, I don't think that has really changed.  However, I personally support working on this, for the little that's probably worth.

As a tactical response, any reason you couldn't use the IPv6 address ::FFFF:7900:3535 (::FFFF:127.0.53.53) or generate a ULA prefix for IPv6 "controlled interruption"?  You've already spilt the milk anyway. :)

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

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer                          Email: farmer@umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota    
2218 University Ave SE         Phone: +1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: +1-612-812-9952
===============================================