nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 06:47:44 -0800
On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:40 , Jerry Cloe <jerry () jtcloe net> wrote: Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public To: nanog <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>>; This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed? https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.html> I can think of about a dozen /8's that would be better to use. (Hint, they all have DOD in the name.) They haven't been in routing tables for decades and there wouldn't be hardly any technical issues (like there would be with 127/8). The only drawback is I've seen a lot of organizations treat them like rfc1918 space.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. The fact that a prefix isn’t in a routing table you can see does not mean it is not used in a circumstance where having it appear in routing tables you can see would be harmful or disruptive. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Matt Palmer (Nov 17)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public William Herrin (Nov 17)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Matt Palmer (Nov 17)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Sean Donelan (Nov 17)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Sean Donelan (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- RE: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jerry Cloe (Nov 17)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Gaurav Kansal (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Mark Tinka (Nov 17)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public borg (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Mark Tinka (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Greg Skinner via NANOG (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Carsten Bormann (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public bzs (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Masataka Ohta (Nov 18)
(Thread continues...)