Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

[Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com>]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:00 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
> Since, as you point out, use of the other addresses in 127.0.0.0/8 is not particularly widespread, having a prefix
> dedicated to that purpose globally vs. allowing each site that cares to choose their own doesn’t seem like the best
> tradeoff.

I would prefer to discuss the other drafts. However, - and this is not
in the 127 draft, and is an opinion not shared with the other authors
-
I have a specific use case for making 127 "more routable", in that
there is nowadays a twisty maze of microservices, bottled up in a
variety of
kubernetes containers, running on top of vms, on top of a hypervisor,
that are often hooked together via rfc1918 addressing and NAT.

Trying to figure out that particular path, from within one of those
containers, can be a PITA. The concept of 127 being local to a
physical host
(and routed internally, rather than natted), where those twisty maze
of services ideally remains within that host, holds some appeal to me.

> Owen


-- 
I tried to build a better future, a few times:
https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org

Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC