Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

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 () nic in> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 18-Nov-2021, at 09:10, Jerry Cloe <jerry () jtcloe net <mailto:jerry () jtcloe net>> wrote:
> >
> >  
> >  
> > Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
> > To: nanog <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () 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/>