nanog mailing list archives
Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock)
From: Seth David Schoen <schoen () loyalty org>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 18:35:18 -0800
John R. Levine writes:
This still doesn't mean that screwing around with 240/4 or, an even worse 127/8 minus 127/24, is a good idea.
I hope you'll be slightly mollified to learn that it's actually 127/8 minus 127/16. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127/ That's the most challenging one, but we've still seen something of a lack of people getting in touch to point out concrete problems. One person did get in touch to describe an unofficial use of, apparently, all of 127/8 as private address space in a VPN product. If people let us know about more, we can investigate workarounds or possible changes to our proposals. We previously thought that the reference NTP implementation was using all of 127/8 to identify hardware clock drivers. But it turns out it doesn't actually connect to these. If anyone reading this knows of something that uses a loopback address outside of 127/16 for an application, or something that can't be updated and would be harmed if the rest of the network stopped treating this as loopback, we'd be glad to hear about it.
Current thread:
- 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock, (continued)
- 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 08)
- CC:s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Anne Mitchell (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) John Levine (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) William Herrin (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) John Levine (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) John Kristoff (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Masataka Ohta (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Tom Beecher (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Nathan Angelacos (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) John R. Levine (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Seth David Schoen (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Joe Maimon (Mar 10)
- 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Abraham Y. Chen (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Mark Andrews (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Dave Taht (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Tom Hill (Mar 09)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Joe Maimon (Mar 10)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) bzs (Mar 08)
- Re: CC: s to Non List Members (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock) Greg Skinner via NANOG (Mar 12)
- Re: V6 still not supported John Gilmore (Mar 16)
- Re: V6 still not supported Owen DeLong via NANOG (Mar 16)