Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

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

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 21:00 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > Agreed. But I have every right to express my desires and displeasures with widespread plans to encourage what I 
> > perceive as misuse and that’s exactly what’s happening here.
> >
> > My right to attempt to discourage it by opposing proposed standards is exactly equal to your right to encourage it 
> > by promoting them.
>
> Since your discouragement may take form in preventing some amount of improvement or amelioration to IPv4 users, there 
> is a human cost associated to that.

Since wasted effort may prevent other things I see as advantageous to the network and humanity in general from 
happening, there is a human cost to not preventing it.

> Absent the equivalent clear correlation of harm to whatever else you believe those resources are engaged in, I would 
> not say those two behaviors are of equal consequence.

You are entitled to your opinion. I do not happen to share it.

> > I’m really saying what I said. That IMHO, there’s no benefit to the internet overall if this proposed change is 
> > accepted and/or implemented and I see no benefit to standardizing it. As such, I remain opposed to doing so.
>
> 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.

There stands some chance. It’s not clear how good that chance is. Obviously you think it is a higher probability than I 
do. You also assume that it would be widely implemented faster than deployment of IPv6 which is also an assertion of 
which I remain unconvinced.

> Further, there is historical precedent that discouraging re-purposing IPv4 addressing is the wrong decision.

Nope… There is historical precedent that you don’t like it. IMHO, we’ve done far too many things and put far too much 
effort into avoiding rather than completing IPv6 transition. As such, I think that the historical precedent argues that 
adding to those errors will not accelerate IPv6 transition and is, therefore, wasted effort at best and potentially 
counterproductive.

> > Whether or not the effort that would be wasted implementing it would go to IPv6 or to some other more useful pursuit 
> > is not a concern I factor into my opinion in this case.
>
> And I appreciate that, as I consider that reasoning to be specious at best, morally dubious at worst.

At least we agree on something.

> > Again, have not made any such assumption here, either. It’s not relevant. The only thing I consider relevant is that 
> > any resources expended on a complete waste of time could be better
> > expended elsewhere.
>
> I dont consider my opinion as to what people's effort should be spent on relevant to whether a particular proposal 
> has merit all of its own.

IMHO, the proposal has no merit and is therefore a waste of time. Clearly you disagree. That’s fine.

> > > Which GUA and LL are not, no matter how readily available and easily assignable and otherwise equivalent they are 
> > > in every way but the one. They are not loopback designated by standard (and system implementation).
> > And this matters why?
> >
> > Owen
>
> So re-purpose 127/8 and if users and developers agree with you, it will become available right about the time IPv6 
> should have finally managed to obsolete IPv4, no harm no foul. And if it fails at that again, at least we will have 
> 127/8 and cohorts.

Meh, feel free to do whatever you want. In terms of any IETF WG adoption call or consensus call, I’ll object as I 
consider it useless at best and harmful at worst.

Nothing you have said provides any indication that there is sufficient merit to be worth the time I have wasted on this 
thread, let alone further effort.

Owen