Can you be more specific about what changes to IPv6 you believe would resolve the issue? Owen
On Nov 18, 2021, at 01:43 , borg@uu3.net wrote:
No, you are not alone. This just gets kinda pathetic. It also shows how an IPv6 is a failure. (No please, leave me alone all you IPv6 zealots).
I think its time to go back to design board and start working on IPv8 ;) so we finnaly get rid of IPv4...
---------- Original message ----------
From: Jay R. Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> To: nanog <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 23:29:49 +0000 (UTC)
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 ]
Cheers, -- jra
-- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274