Re: [v6ops] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix-04.txt

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>, Mark S
mith writes:
> Hi Owen,
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>
> > To: Mark Smith <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: v6ops v6ops WG <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013 6:37 AM
> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-smith-v6ops-l=
> arger-ipv6-loopback-prefix-04.txt
> > =
> 
> >T his version has done nothing to address my previously stated objections =
> and =
> 
> > concerns.
> >=A0
> 
> I didn't intend it to.
> 
> You seem to believe that the best solution to this problem would be to rese=
> rve the all-zeros Global ID of the ULA prefix. I disagree with that for qui=
> te number of reasons (with another one being that the "Unique" in ULA would=
>  now be false). Many of the things I have proposed are fundamentally depend=
> ent on a new prefix being allocated for this purpose, rather than changing =
> the purpose of one of the prefixes within the ULA prefix.=A0I consider the =
> number of changes I'd have to make my draft use a ULA prefix significant, s=
> uch that I'd end up pretty much writing your proposal, rather than mine. I'=
> ve spent quite a lot of my own time and effort on this, I don't want to spe=
> nd significantly more (if you compare draft 00 with 01, you can see that wa=
> s an almost complete rewrite).

Part of presenting a proposal is demonstrating why existing methods
do not work.  There are a number plain falsehoods in your draft.

"Multiple IPv6 loopback addresses are not available to bind application
instances to when using the same port on the same host." is a
falsehood.

There is *nothing* in the IPv6 architecture to prevent the operator
of the machine configuring additional loopback addresses.  In fact
multiple loopback addresses are rarely used and whenever they are
used some level of configuration is required.

> So if you think using prefix from within the ULA prefix is the better solut=
> ion, then I think it would be better if you wrote up an ID to propose it an=
> d provide the corresponding details.

No. It is your job to demonstrate why existing mechanisms are not
sufficient and the first step is to present a honest eveluation of
why they are not so.  I don't believe you were being intentionally
dishonest but there is a lack of rigour in your analysis of the
currently available mechanisms.

Mark

> Regards,
> Mark.
> > =
> 
> > On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:27 , Mark Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > =
> 
> >>  Hi,
> >> =
> 
> >>  Here is a new version of my larger IPv6 loopback prefix draft. Changes =
> 
> > since the last version are relatively minor:
> >> =
> 
> >> =A0 =A0 o=A0 usability references (DOET and EASY-NUMBERS)
> >> =A0 =
> 
> >> =A0 =A0 o=A0 minor clarifications
> >> =A0 =
> 
> >> =A0 =A0 o=A0 grammar corrections
> >> =
> 
> >>  Further review welcome and appreciated.
> >> =
> 
> >>  Regards,
> >>  Mark.
> >> =
> 
> >> =
> 
> >>  ----- Forwarded Message -----
> >>>  From: "[e-mail]" =
> 
> > <[e-mail]>
> >>>  To: [e-mail]
> >>>  Cc: =
> 
> >>>  Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013 6:17 AM
> >>>  Subject: New Version Notification for =
> 
> > draft-smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix-04.txt
> >>> =
> 
> >>> =
> 
> >>>  A new version of I-D, =
> 
> > draft-smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix-04.txt
> >>>  has been successfully submitted by Mark Smith and posted to the
> >>>  IETF repository.
> >>> =
> 
> >>>  Filename:=A0 =A0  draft-smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix
> >>>  Revision:=A0 =A0  04
> >>>  Title:=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0  A Larger Loopback Prefix for IPv6
> >>>  Creation date:=A0 =A0  2013-02-20
> >>>  Group:=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0  Individual Submission
> >>>  Number of pages: 12
> >>>  URL:=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
> 
> >>> =
> 
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopbac=
> k-prefix-04.txt
> >>>  Status:=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
> 
> >>> =
> 
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-pr=
> efix
> >>>  Htmlized:=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
> 
> >>> =
> 
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix-=
> 04
> >>>  Diff:=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
> 
> >>> =
> 
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback=
> -prefix-04
> >>> =
> 
> >>>  Abstract:
> >>> =A0 =A0 During the development and testing of a network application, it=
>  can
> >>> =A0 =A0 be useful to run multiple instances of the application using th=
> e =
> 
> > same
> >>> =A0 =A0 transport layer protocol port on the same development host, whi=
> le
> >>> =A0 =A0 also having network access to the application instances limited=
>  to
> >>> =A0 =A0 the local host.=A0 Under IPv4, this has commonly been possible =
> by =
> 
> > using
> >>> =A0 =A0 different loopback addresses within 127/8.=A0 It is not possibl=
> e under
> >>> =A0 =A0 IPv6, as the loopback prefix of ::1/128 only provides a single
> >>> =A0 =A0 loopback address.=A0 This memo proposes a new larger loopback p=
> refix
> >>> =A0 =A0 that will provide many IPv6 loopback addresses.=A0 The processi=
> ng =
> 
> > rules
> >>> =A0 =A0 for this new larger loopback prefix also allow sending or forwa=
> rding
> >>> =A0 =A0 of packets containing these addresses beyond the originating ro=
> uter
> >>> =A0 =A0 under certain circumstances.
> >>> =
> 
> >>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
>  =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
> 
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
> 
> >>> =A0 =
> 
> >>> =
> 
> >>> =
> 
> >>>  The IETF Secretariat
> >>> =
> 
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  v6ops mailing list
> >>  [e-mail]
> >>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> > =
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]