Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

• Previous message (by thread): Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
• Next message (by thread): Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:31 PM Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> 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

Hi Jay,

I think it's a good idea. It won't be usable any time in the next two
decades but if we're still using IPv4 in two decades we'll be glad to
have anything we can scrounge. Why not ask OS authors to start
assigning 127.0.0.1/16 to loopback instead of 127.0.0.1/8?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

• Previous message (by thread): Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
• Next message (by thread): Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]