nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: John Kristoff <jtk () dataplane org>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:07:18 -0600
On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 08:53:53 -0800 Jonathan Kalbfeld via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
If we’re going to do something that Majorly Breaks the Internet(tm), why not talk about the 240/4 space instead?
I like the proposal that suggest include a plan to reuse 224/4 (with the exception of 224.0.0.0/24, but it looks like the plan is OK with not using any of 224.0.0.0/8). With apologies to our small set of friends who are keeping the interdomain dream alive, I might help advocate for such a plan not because of what it adds, but because of what it helps hasten the demise of. :-) John
Current thread:
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Levine (Nov 20)
- Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Enno Rey (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Måns Nilsson (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Fred Baker (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public John Kristoff (Nov 18)