Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sun Nov 21 03:19:18 UTC 2021


Please make sure there’s video we can all watch when you try to take DoD’s IP addresses
by force.

ROFLMAO

Owen


> On Nov 20, 2021, at 11:20 , Gaurav Kansal <gaurav.kansal at nic.in> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 18-Nov-2021, at 09:10, Jerry Cloe <jerry at jtcloe.net <mailto: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 
>  <https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20211120/9586bc0c/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list