Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Jerry Cloe jerry at jtcloe.net
Thu Nov 18 03:40:16 UTC 2021


 

 
Subject:Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
To:nanog <nanog at 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

 
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.

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211117/0d9b193d/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list