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

[Klaus Frank <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>     wrote:
>
>         Thus spake Klaus Frank ([e-mail]) 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
>         [e-mail]
>         Administrative Requests:
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>         --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> -- 
> Ed Horley
> [e-mail]| [phone]
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops