> On Nov 17, 2021, at 21:33 , Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 Nov 2021, at 11:58, Joe Maimon <jmai...@chl.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>> It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up
>>>> drafts like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is in use.
>>>> It isn’t free.
>>> There are so many things wrong with this statement that I am not even going
>>> to try to enumerate them.
>>>
>>> However suffice it to say that drafts like these are concrete documentation
>>> of non-groupthink and essentially you are advocating for self-censorship
>>> and loss of historical perspective.
>> I’m advocating for not taking address away that have been allocated for a
>> purpose. No one knows what the impact of doing that will be. Perhaps we
>> should just take back 216.222.144.0/20? You obviously think taking back
>> address that are in use to be a good thing. This is similar to taking back
>> other address that are allocated but not advertised.
>
> I am advocating for serious discussion on the merits, and only the merits, of
> each individual idea and proposal and to respect those willing to put in the
> effort even while likely knowing of the undeserved scorn bound to come their
> way from those who choose not do as I would advocate them doing.
>
> And I think the basic contention is that the vast majority of 127/8 is not in
> use. Apples to oranges, indeed.
This contention is provably false for some definitions of “in use”.
>> You can script is to the same extent that you can hard code 127/8 addresses.
>> I’ve used ULA addresses but conceptually they are the same. The lo0
>> interface also has more that 127.0.0.1 IPv4 addresses on it.
>>
>> % ifconfig lo0 inet6
>> lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384
>> options=1203<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,TXSTATUS,SW_TIMESTAMP>
>> inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 .
>> inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
>> inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ffff::1 prefixlen 64
>>
> Thats twice now you have suggested that ULA and LLA are an exact substitute
> for dedicated system loopback prefix.
In what way would the LLA or ULA above be meaningfully different from 127/8 as
deployed?
> At the very least, it is semantically not.
How so?
> Doesnt IPv6 deserve its own instead of squatting on IPv4?
I don’t see any “squatting on IPv4” here.
Since, as you point out, use of the other addresses in 127.0.0.0/8 is not
particularly widespread, having a prefix
dedicated to that purpose globally vs. allowing each site that cares to choose
their own doesn’t seem like the best
tradeoff.
Owen
