Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Sat Nov 20 19:20:51 UTC 2021


> On 18-Nov-2021, at 09:10, 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.
>  
This seems to be much better idea then 127/8 or 240/8

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211121/dc212739/attachment.html>