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
- [v6ops] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1? Klaus Frank
- Re: [v6ops] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1? Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1? nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [v6ops] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1? Dale W. Carder
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1? Nick Buraglio
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1? Ed Horley
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1? David Farmer
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1? Klaus Frank
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1? Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1? Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] [IPv6] RFC for fec0:0:0:ffff::1? Owen DeLong