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 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. Regards, Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
