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.
Which given the state of IPv6 transition, perhaps more of that in the
past would have been nice.
For example
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 from 2008
which fell prey to the "by the time this is usable IPv6 will have taken
over" groupthink.
Objectively wrong.
Predictive self-fulfilling circular arguments of this sort should no
longer be given any weight, and along your lines, should never even be
brought up.
Lots of bad attempts to justify a bad idea.
"The IPv4 network 127/8 was first reserved by Jon Postel in 1981 [RFC0776].
Postel's policy was to reserve the first and last network of each class, and it does
not appear that he had a specific plan for how to use 127/8.”
Having a space for permission-less innovation and testing is a good thing. Jon
understood that.
Yes its a good idea to have space that is guaranteed to be available to
every system regardless of its networking condition and that the host
has deterministic control over the addressing used in that space.
However, it turns out that /8 was much too large. The extreme few
instances of its usefulness at that size pale in comparison with even
the possibility of its usefulness to the public.
So any attempt to adjust that should be given proper attention and
serious thought.
"By contrast, IPv6, despite its vastly larger pool of available address space,
allocates only a single local loopback address (::1) [RFC4291]. This appears to be
an architectural vote of confidence in the idea that Internet protocols ultimately
do not require millions of distinct loopback addresses.”
This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. IPv6 has both link and site local
addresses and an architecture to deliver packets to specific instances of each.
This does not exist in the IPv4 world.
SO an IPv6 only system without any network interfaces can run multiple
discrete instances of the same daemon accepting connections on the same
TCP port? Can I script that, can I template that with hardcoded
addresses, same as I can now for 127/8?
Good thing I can just use ::FFFF:127.0.0.1/104
"In theory, having multiple local loopback addresses might be useful for
increasing the number of distinct IPv4 sockets that can be used for inter-process
communication within a host. The local loopback /16 network retained by this
document will still permit billions of distinct concurrent loopback TCP connections
within a single host, even if both the IP address and port number of one endpoint of
each connection are fixed.”
But it doesn’t deliver millions of end points. Sorry you simulation will not
work because we don’t have more that 65000 end points anymore. Sorry RFC 1918
addresses are not always suitable.
"Reserved for <use>" is not the same as “Reserved”.
Mark
Let them use IPv6 link local for their simulations.
On 18 Nov 2021, at 10:45, scott <sur...@mauigateway.com> wrote:
On 11/17/2021 1:29 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed?
Its only a relevant idea if you still care about IPv4. In which case, it
might be a good idea.
Joe
