Please make sure there’s video we can all watch when you try to take DoD’s IP addresses by force. ROFLMAO Owen
On Nov 20, 2021, at 11:20 , Gaurav Kansal <gaurav.kansal@nic.in> wrote:
On 18-Nov-2021, at 09:10, Jerry Cloe <jerry@jtcloe.net <mailto: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.
This seems to be much better idea then 127/8 or 240/8 <https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/>