nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Greg Skinner via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 10:05:10 -0800
For what it’s worth, it's also being discussed in a couple of subreddits. Total # of comments is about 500, so far. https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/qvuyor/new_rfc_to_redefine_loop_back_and_allow_127100_to/ <https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/qvuyor/new_rfc_to_redefine_loop_back_and_allow_127100_to/> https://www.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/qw0kv0/unicast_use_of_the_formerly_reserved_1278/ <https://www.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/qw0kv0/unicast_use_of_the_formerly_reserved_1278/> —gregbo
Current thread:
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Enno Rey (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Fred Baker (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Kristoff (Nov 18)