Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

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 definitely a stupid idea. As it requires to update all the end systems not to recognize 127/8 as loopback, releasing Class E, which is 16 times larger than 127/8, as an additional public unicast address range is a lot (16 times) better. Though intermediate systems such as backbone routers must be updated to release Class E, that is a lot lot lot less painful to replace the end systems. Masataka Ohta