Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

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

> On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:40 , Jerry Cloe <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.
>  

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

The fact that a prefix isn’t in a routing table you can see does not mean it is not used in a circumstance where
having it appear in routing tables you can see would be harmful or disruptive.

Owen