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.kan...@nic.in> wrote: > > > >> On 18-Nov-2021, at 09:10, Jerry Cloe <je...@jtcloe.net >> <mailto: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. >> > This seems to be much better idea then 127/8 or 240/8 > <https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/>
