Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Thu Nov 18 11:39:32 UTC 2021

Jay R. Ashworth 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

That's definitely a stupid idea.

As it requires to update all the end systems not to recognize 127/8
as loopback, releasing Class E, which is 16 times larger than 127/8,
as an additional public unicast address range is a lot (16 times)
better.

Though intermediate systems such as backbone routers must be updated
to release Class E, that is a lot lot lot less painful to replace the
end systems.

						Masataka Ohta