Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-10-01 Thread Darcy Kevin (FCA)
- 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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-10-01 Thread John R Levine
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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-10-01 Thread David Conrad
> 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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-10-01 Thread George Michaelson
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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-10-01 Thread John Levine
>> 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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-10-01 Thread Tony Finch
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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-30 Thread Robert Edmonds
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 >

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-30 Thread Evan Hunt
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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-30 Thread Mark Andrews
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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-30 Thread John Levine
>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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-30 Thread joel jaeggli
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. >

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-30 Thread John Levine
>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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-30 Thread Brian Haberman
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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-30 Thread Brian Haberman
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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-30 Thread Paul Hoffman
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

Re: [DNSOP] Brian Haberman's No Record on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-04: (with COMMENT)

2015-09-30 Thread John Levine
> 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