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

So the author of the new proposal is from ICANN. They're don't provide a reference, however they seem to proposing this use case as one purpose (the "ICANN's Controlled Interruption" referred to):

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en

"127.0.53.53
127.0.53.53 is a special IPv4 address that will appear in system logs alerting system administrators that there is potential name collision issue, enabling a quick diagnosis and remediation. The "53" is used as a mnemonic to indicate a DNS-related problem owing to the use of network port 53 for the DNS service."

Note that the above 127.0.53.53 address is not reserved in IANA's IPv4 special address registry. It should be, however as they didn't consult the IETF, it seems it also didn't go to IANA (a department of ICANN!). (
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14-en.pdf)

I'd strongly object to them attempting to do the same thing with an larger IPv6 loopback prefix. A loopback prefix is local to the host it appears on, and is not globally unique. Consequently, all addresses within the prefix should be available for use on the local host for what ever purpose the local host or its user decides. There should be no hidden reserved values with special global meaning.

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. There is plenty of IPv6 space to do so, rather than creating a single address exception out of a block of addresses that has or would have a well known expected purpose and behaviour.

Regards,
Mark (author of below)

----- Original Message -----
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Cc: Edward Lewis <edward.lewis@icann.org>; "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, 16 February 2015, 18:09
Subject: Re: [v6ops] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ipversion6-loopback-prefix-00.txt

> IIRC this idea has come up at least once before, and maybe more (not sure
> where - perhaps in v6ops?). I don't oppose it - in fact, I think it's a good
> idea - but since the previous attempt(s) never came to anything, I assume
> there was no consensus that this is useful.

Yep.  1::/32.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix-04#section-3

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops