- Kevin
-Original Message-
From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 9:47 PM
To: John Levine
Cc: e...@isc.org; dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record o
On your system, I'm sure it works fine. On other systems that
implement IPv6 in other ways, maybe not.
Which is why I think
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ipversion6-loopback-prefix-00
should be resurrected (not directly relevant to DNSOP of course).
Seems like a good idea. I've got a
> On Oct 1, 2015, at 10:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
>>> Uh, no. The *only* loopback address is ::1. The rest of ::/8 is
>>> reserved.
>>
>> Anything is a loopback address if you alias it on your loopback interface.
>>
>> ::2 was only intended as an example (that's why
Strong +1. This is an obvious, useful, rational and alas, strictly
irrelevant point. Which I agree with.
-G
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:51 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> > On Oct 1, 2015, at 10:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
> >
> >>> Uh, no. The *only* loopback
>> Uh, no. The *only* loopback address is ::1. The rest of ::/8 is
>> reserved.
>
>Anything is a loopback address if you alias it on your loopback interface.
>
>::2 was only intended as an example (that's why I said "salt to taste"),
>but it was not a particularly well-chosen one.
On your
John Levine wrote:
>
> If you have a loopback software interface, you could set up a link
> local address like fe80::1, but now your DNS software has to
> understand link scoped addresses like fe80::1%lo.
>
> Having set up a DNS cache on my LAN using link local IPv6 addresses, I
Joe Abley wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2015, at 12:53, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> >I'll add the v4/v6 wording to the post-IESG-review draft unless there is
> >objection in the WG.
>
> I like the v4/v6 wording, for what that's worth.
>
> >John Levine just answered your question about why the address might
>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:41:19PM -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> but AFAIK the example BIND configuration
> only supports querying the "static-stub" servers on the well-known port.
This is true. It's implemented as a virtual delegation, and works the same
as a regular delegation. NS and glue
In message <20150930182604.ga47...@isc.org>, Evan Hunt writes:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:41:19PM -0400, Robert Edmonds wrote:
> > but AFAIK the example BIND configuration
> > only supports querying the "static-stub" servers on the well-known port.
>
> This is true. It's implemented as a
>It should be easy enough to create a local alias address for the purpose
>though. "ifconfig lo inet6 add ::2 alias", salt to taste.
Uh, no. The *only* loopback address is ::1. The rest of ::/8 is reserved.
If you have a loopback software interface, you could set up a link
local address
On 9/30/15 6:46 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
> John Levine wrote:
>>> It should be easy enough to create a local alias address for the purpose
>>> though. "ifconfig lo inet6 add ::2 alias", salt to taste.
>>
>> Uh, no. The *only* loopback address is ::1. The rest of ::/8 is
>> reserved.
>
>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
Hi Paul,
On 9/30/15 11:18 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2015, at 8:12, Brian Haberman wrote:
>
--
COMMENT:
--
I can't decide if I
Hi Paul,
On 9/30/15 10:54 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2015, at 6:53, Brian Haberman wrote:
>
>> --
>> COMMENT:
>> --
>>
>> I can't decide if I should
On 30 Sep 2015, at 8:26, Brian Haberman wrote:
--
COMMENT:
--
I can't decide if I should ballot Yes because this document does a
good
job of describing how
> 2. Start the authoritative server with the root zone on a loopback
> address. This would typically be 127.0.0.1 in IPv4 or ::1 in
> IPv6.
>
>Why does the document say that the address should not be in use?
In many systems a local DNS cache or forwarder listens on 127.0.0.1
and
16 matches
Mail list logo