Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Fri Nov 19 14:47:44 UTC 2021

> On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:40 , Jerry Cloe <jerry at jtcloe.net> wrote:
> 
>  
>  
> Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
> To: nanog <nanog at nanog.org <mailto: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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211119/193ac273/attachment.html>