[v6ops] Re: [IPv6]Re: New draft: "The IPv6 Loopback Address Prefix"

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

{I haven't read all of the threads}

1. I think that the common practice (even, BCP) situation of putting GUAs on the
   loopback interface in order that they be available regardless of which
   interface is up is a different situation than wanting to put multiple ::1

We actually struggled in RFC8994 to explain the above practice, as it was
not, it seems really documented anywhere. (section 6.11)
This is neither here nor there, I think.

2. Those who want ::2, etc. what it, and not a ULA, because it's a form of
   zero-cost discovery.  You create a local convention, like that the local
   (container) DNS server is at [::53]:53.  ULA won't work, because the
   conventions get burnt into your local tools/containers/etc.

::0/48 is wrong, because it includes many other things.

I don't buy that I need to put a /64 on "each" loopback interface.
At that point any convention around ::53 or something is dead, so do
something else.
The notion of allocating 1::/32 has a smell for me.

I would like ULA-C to be useable at some point.  If this document
wants to take fc00::/48, and can do it without opening the ULA-C debate, then
great.  (Or maybe it can open that debate and finish it)

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide