Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

[scott <surfer () mauigateway com>]

On 11/17/2021 1:29 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> 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
>
> That's over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's just
> me.  So many things are just me.
>
> [ Hat tip to Lauren Weinstein, whom I stole it from ]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 



Everyone's just tired of rehashing this stuff... ;)  I looked up the 
"IPv4 Unicast Extensions Project" the authors (S.D. Schoen, J. Gilmore 
and D. Täht) are a part of.


https://github.com/schoen/unicast-extensions

------------------

Fixing the odd nooks and crannies still mildly broken in IPv4, by:

 * Making class-e (240/4), 0/8, 127/8, 224/4 more usable
 * Adding 419 million new IPs to the world
 * Fixing zeroth networking
   <https://github.com/schoen/unicast-extensions/blob/master/ZEROTH.md>
 * Improving interoperability with multiple protocols and tunnelling
   technologies
 * Supplying tested patches and tools that address these problems

------------------

Some of these are hardcoded in ASICs, I believe.  Change that! ;)

scott