So see, that was kinda my view, though I hadn't realized there was a kernel hack advancing the football...
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen DeLong" <o...@delong.com> > To: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> > Cc: "jra" <j...@baylink.com>, "nanog" <nanog@nanog.org> > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 9:28:01 AM > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public > This will break a significant number of existing deployments where people > have come to depend on a feature in Linux where any address within 127.0.0.0/8 > can be “listened” and operate as a valid loopback address without configuring > the addresses individually as unicast on the interface. > > In fact, this is true of any prefix assigned to the loopback interface, but > 127.0.0.0/8 > is automatic and difficult to change. > > While I’m not sure this implementation in the Linux kernel was such a > wonderful > idea, it is widely deployed and in use in a number of environments. > > If we’re still using IPv4 widely enough that GUA space matters, we will have > far bigger problems than the lack of available GUA for it. > > Owen > > >> On Nov 17, 2021, at 16:15 , William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:31 PM Jay R. Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> 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 >> >> Hi Jay, >> >> I think it's a good idea. It won't be usable any time in the next two >> decades but if we're still using IPv4 in two decades we'll be glad to >> have anything we can scrounge. Why not ask OS authors to start >> assigning 127.0.0.1/16 to loopback instead of 127.0.0.1/8? >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> -- >> William Herrin >> b...@herrin.us > > https://bill.herrin.us/ -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
