nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 06:28:01 -0800
This will break a significant number of existing deployments where people have come to depend on a feature in Linux where any address within 127.0.0.0/8 can be “listened” and operate as a valid loopback address without configuring the addresses individually as unicast on the interface. In fact, this is true of any prefix assigned to the loopback interface, but 127.0.0.0/8 is automatic and difficult to change. While I’m not sure this implementation in the Linux kernel was such a wonderful idea, it is widely deployed and in use in a number of environments. If we’re still using IPv4 widely enough that GUA space matters, we will have far bigger problems than the lack of available GUA for it. Owen
On Nov 17, 2021, at 16:15 , William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote: On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:31 PM Jay R. Ashworth <jra () baylink com> 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.htmlHi Jay, I think it's a good idea. It won't be usable any time in the next two decades but if we're still using IPv4 in two decades we'll be glad to have anything we can scrounge. Why not ask OS authors to start assigning 127.0.0.1/16 to loopback instead of 127.0.0.1/8? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill () herrin us https://bill.herrin.us/
Current thread:
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 21)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Max Harmony via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 21)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Dave Taht (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Jay R. Ashworth (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Sean Donelan (Nov 18)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Gaurav Kansal (Nov 20)
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)