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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Thu, 01 December 2022 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC64FC1522A9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:24:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=delong.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zfAZrasJudQF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2465FC14CE59 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:23:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:18a1:2b93:28af:eafb]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 2B1JNSji3295719 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 1 Dec 2022 11:23:28 -0800
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 owen.delong.com 2B1JNSji3295719
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1669922608; bh=tUc9nqmytTG5sl0E52z0EoSk4Wh7uCimaV3aglUqIoQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=FC+fbNUBwc9oyd/Y8BYeHu3RX6nOMRusRBq3TzkwpUuHElUkkmIV85+avXc16WXJM 6ktTpqDU0+F4JbPLrceDuCHSa+8cn/pojfdT5cDE3WEa0zOjxDZ43M1Xz7gOVvzsf9 vHXFrEpMQ30VBcO17zWjwOF046SC4/5byzKWG1eU=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.200.110.1.12\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d2838fb-270f-1bc3-9c51-d76f06a2ebcc@posteo.de>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2022 11:23:18 -0800
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C473DF55-B7E7-4D6A-A1FD-588E35F560F9@delong.com>
References: <324539dd-37f6-fbd9-ea98-c51320f38603@posteo.de> <Y4d8VaEbNV43BGRl@dwc-laptop-2.local> <CAM5+tA-9-kchyifny_pfHLi7n4by3-xCkhmxq8sRHCm=NshbsA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE=N4xd0gEmZB7JY25J8kBYiCio36KqQpr3dwymV30ibeWttOg@mail.gmail.com> <1d2838fb-270f-1bc3-9c51-d76f06a2ebcc@posteo.de>
To: Klaus Frank <klaus.frank@posteo.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.200.110.1.12)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Thu, 01 Dec 2022 11:23:28 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/c49sqvuLsFu0LjUjzYskRUVYnbM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 01 Dec 2022 19:24:39 -0000

I suspect that since Site Local addresses were deprecated before this saw any sort of wide-spread implementation and that since Micr0$0ft was the one pushing this as a standard (Dave Thaler specifically, whose name is on the RFC) and mentioned earlier in the thread, that Micr0$0ft is likely the only major vendor that implemented it.

Owen


> On Nov 30, 2022, at 12:29, Klaus Frank <klaus.frank@posteo.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 30.11.2022 20:28, Ed Horley 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.
> Actually I didn't want to have it "fixed" I.E. removed in windows. But I rather would have liked to check if it is a cross platform thing or a "just Microsoft" one again. As it would have been kinda usefull in one of my projects right now. I kinda like the idea of a well-known (or site speficic as it originally was) DNS Server address....
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 8:36 AM Nick Buraglio <buraglio@es.net> 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 <dwcarder@es.net>
>>    wrote:
>> 
>>        Thus spake Klaus Frank (klaus.frank@posteo.de) 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
>>        ipv6@ietf.org
>>        Administrative Requests:
>>        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>        --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>    ipv6@ietf.org
>>    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ed Horley
>> ed@hexabuild.io| (925) 876-6604
>> 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
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops