On 30 Sep 2015, at 8:12, Brian Haberman wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't decide if I should ballot Yes because this document does a
good
job of describing how to deploy this approach or Abstain because the
fragility introduced in this approach appears to be untenable.
In the meantime, can someone explain why this document is stating a
requirement to deploy this approach with IPv4 only?
Yes. Given that this is running on loopback, it doesn't matter if the
service is running on either the v4 or v6 loopback address. Unless a
system running this service has absolutely no v4 at all (it doesn't
even
need to be offering v4 service to customers), the v4 loopback address
is
sufficient.
There seems to be wide disagreement about what is the v6 loopback
address: some of these addresses exist on some v6 systems but not
others, or so we were told. If there is a v6 loopback address that is
universally deployed (as 127/8 is for v4), we can add it, although it
won't actually make this more deployable.
--Paul Hoffman
I am not sure how much clearer the definition of IPv6 loopback could
be
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.3). Of course, if it
is an implementation issue, there is not much the IETF can do.
Thanks for the quick response.
If the WG agrees that 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 is always present, we can
certainly add that to the document. I now cannot find any on-list
mention of why this isn't useful in all v6-capable systems, so it might
have been a hallway conversation.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
