Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>]

Max Harmony via NANOG wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2021, at 00.00, Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:
> > There is a clear difference of opinion on this, that there stands a very good chance that prompt implementation now may 
> > prove to provide significant benefit in the future, should IPv6 continue to lag, which you cannot guarantee it wont.
> The reassignment being implemented faster than IPv6 seems like a big assumption.
Suppose you are correct. This time. Even a broken clock can be right 
twice a day.

The only loss for the most part in most of these related proposals is 
the time spent dickering on them and a few extra patches thrown in over 
the next decade.

So just agree already.

127/8 is actually the proposal with the most potential for 
implementation issues as the definition change wends its way into system 
updates. And its easy to see that typical system updates tend to bring 
far greater disruption to system administrators on a regular basis. I 
would not rule out this change in that regard.

And if you are wrong, as history suggests you may very well be?

What is lost by not acting now is possibly far greater.

Joe