> On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:40 , Jerry Cloe <je...@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. >
You are assuming facts not in evidence. The fact that a prefix isn’t in a routing table you can see does not mean it is not used in a circumstance where having it appear in routing tables you can see would be harmful or disruptive. Owen
