Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 6:35 PM, Matthew Walster wrote: > > I genuinely believe we're reaching a stalling point for IPv6 service > enabling, and it's time to focus energy on running IPv6 only clients -- and > to do that, we need to make the IPv6 only experience for residential / soho > be as p

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 21:00 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Agreed. But I have every right to express my desires and displeasures with >> widespread plans to encourage what I perceive as misuse and that’s exactly >> what’s happening here. >> >> My right to attempt to

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 20:37 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Nov 20, 2021, at 19:11 , Joe Maimon wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Owen DeLong wrote: I guess I don’t see the need/benefit for a dedicated loopback prefix in excess of one address. I’m not necessary

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 19:47 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > (snips for brevity and reply relevancy) >> >> This is a common fallacy… The real concept here isn’t “universal >> reachability”, but universal transparent addressing. Policy then decides >> about rea

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 7:16 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > This is a common fallacy… The real concept here isn’t “universal > reachability”, but universal transparent addressing. Policy then decides > about reachability. > > Think stateful firewall without NAT. > > If you want to allow the i

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:47:10PM -0500 Quoting Joe Maimon (jmai...@jmaimon.com): > layer in front of these classes of devices or that they will be > deployed|developed with sufficient/equivalent security without that layer is

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Max Harmony via NANOG wrote: On 21 Nov 2021, at 00.00, Joe Maimon wrote: There is a clear difference of opinion on this, that there stands a very good chance that prompt implementation now may prove to provide significant benefit in the future, should IPv6 continue to lag, which you cannot

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On 21 Nov 2021, at 00.00, Joe Maimon wrote: > > There is a clear difference of opinion on this, that there stands a very good > chance that prompt implementation now may prove to provide significant > benefit in the future, should IPv6 continue to lag, which you cannot > guarantee it wont. Th

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong wrote: Agreed. But I have every right to express my desires and displeasures with widespread plans to encourage what I perceive as misuse and that’s exactly what’s happening here. My right to attempt to discourage it by opposing proposed standards is exactly equal to your righ

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong wrote: On Nov 20, 2021, at 19:11 , Joe Maimon wrote: Owen DeLong wrote: I guess I don’t see the need/benefit for a dedicated loopback prefix in excess of one address. I’m not necessary inherently opposed to designating one (which would be all that is required for IPv6 to h

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 19:11 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> I guess I don’t see the need/benefit for a dedicated loopback prefix in >> excess of one address. I’m not necessary inherently opposed to designating >> one (which would be all that is required for IPv6 to ha

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: (snips for brevity and reply relevancy) This is a common fallacy… The real concept here isn’t “universal reachability”, but universal transparent addressing. Policy then decides about reachability. Think stateful firewall without NAT. No, NAT is not a firewa

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, > <mailto:mansa...@besserwisser.org>> wrote: >> Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, >> 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta >> (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp <mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.tite

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

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 wrote: > > > >> On 18-Nov-2021, at 09:10, Jerry Cloe > > wrote: >> >> >> >> Subject: Redploying most of 1

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 13:15 , Matthew Walster wrote: > > > > On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 13:47, Måns Nilsson <mailto:mansa...@besserwisser.org>> wrote: > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, > 2021 at 11:16:59AM +

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong wrote: I guess I don’t see the need/benefit for a dedicated loopback prefix in excess of one address. I’m not necessary inherently opposed to designating one (which would be all that is required for IPv6 to have one, no software updates would be necessary), but I’d need some ad

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 22:35, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Nov 20, 2021, at 03:16 , Matthew Walster wrote: > On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, > wrote: > >> Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov >> 20, 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoti

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 20, 2021, at 03:16 , Matthew Walster wrote: > > > > On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, <mailto:mansa...@besserwisser.org>> wrote: > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, > 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Ma

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On 18-Nov-2021, at 09:10, Jerry Cloe wrote: > > > > Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public > To: nanog 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.

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 09:15:24PM + Quoting Matthew Walster (matt...@walster.org): > > Why should we burden ourselves with this cumbersome and painful, useless > > layer of abstraction that is "port forwarding&quo

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 10:50 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> LLA and ULA and whatever random prefix you may wish to use for loopback, >>> whether in IPv6 or even IPv4 have none of these qualities. >> And if we implement the proposal at hand, which as near as I can tell

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 at 13:47, Måns Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, > 2021 at 11:16:59AM + Quoting Matthew Walster (matt...@walster.org): > > 3. IPv6 "port forwarding" isn't really an easy thing -- people

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Once upon a time, Masataka Ohta said: > It merely means IPv6 is not deployable with the real reason. Except that is provably wrong. A significant number of people are using IPv6 (and probably don't even know it, because it works without notice). Almost everything you do on the US cell networks i

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Mans Nilsson wrote: Supplying context you omit: >>> No, it is the real reason that we still have v4 around. >> Even more than 25 years after IPv6 became a proposed standard? It merely means IPv6 is not deployable with the real reason. > IPv6 is deployable. It is deployed. If you mean ATM is

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 09:04:38PM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp): > It merely means IPv6 is not deployable with the real reason. IPv6 is deployable. It is deployed. You are fundamentally in error.

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

During the nation-wide lockdown of 2020, around the world, I took up live-streaming my DJ sets online, since I couldn't play live. For those that haven't seen them, you're welcome to my Youtube channel to catch them: https://yt.djmt.africa/watch Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I was strea

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 11:16:59AM + Quoting Matthew Walster (matt...@walster.org): > The "real" reason we have IPv4 around is that it works. It works in our present context, good enough that the pain of moving look

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Mans Nilsson wrote: We cope, because a lot of technical debt is amassed in corporate and ISP / access provider networks that won't change. Sounds like abstract nonsense. No, it is the real reason that we still have v4 around. Even more than 25 years after IPv6 became a proposed standard?

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021, 09:21 Måns Nilsson, wrote: > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, > 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta ( > mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp): > > > > We cope, > > > because a lot of technical de

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:26:33AM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp): > > We cope, > > because a lot of technical debt is amassed in corporate and ISP / > > access provider networks

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Mans Nilsson wrote: With proper layering, network addresses including IP ones, certainly, uniquely identify *hosts*. However, with proper layering, *applications* only require uniqueness of IP+Port, which is enough for the worldwide IPv4 network. As a result, NAT won the battle against IPv6.

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 09:04:59PM +0900 Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp): > Mans Nilsson wrote: > > > The essence of an IP address is that it is unique. The larger the network > > area is tha

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 12:26:23PM -0800 Quoting John Gilmore (g...@toad.com): > =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson wrote: > > The only viable future is to convert [to IPv6]. This is not > > group-think, it is simple math. &

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson wrote: > The only viable future is to convert [to IPv6]. This is not > group-think, it is simple math. OK. And in the long run, we are all dead. That is not group-think, it is simple math. Yet that's not a good argument for deciding not to improve our lives today.

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong wrote: LLA and ULA and whatever random prefix you may wish to use for loopback, whether in IPv6 or even IPv4 have none of these qualities. And if we implement the proposal at hand, which as near as I can tell you are supporting, that changes. Having trouble following your des

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:00 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > Since, as you point out, use of the other addresses in 127.0.0.0/8 is not > particularly widespread, having a prefix > dedicated to that purpose globally vs. allowing each site that cares to > choose their own doesn’t seem like the b

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

For what it’s worth, it's also being discussed in a couple of subreddits. Total # of comments is about 500, so far. https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/qvuyor/new_rfc_to_redefine_loop_back_and_allow_127100_to/

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

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" > To: "William Herrin" > Cc: "jra" , "nanog" > Sent: Friday, November 19, 2

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:35 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > I’m all for IPv6 having better implementations than IPv4 rather than mere > feature parity. Me too, just not in a dystopian Harrison Bergeron sort of way. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 07:39 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Nov 17, 2021, at 21:33 , Joe Maimon wrote: >>> >>> >>> And I think the basic contention is that the vast majority of 127/8 is not >>> in use. Apples to oranges, indeed. >> This contention is provably fa

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 19, 2021, at 07:23 , Dave Taht wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:00 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> Since, as you point out, use of the other addresses in 127.0.0.0/8 is not >> particularly widespread, having a prefix >> dedicated to that purpose globally vs. allowing each sit

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> > You are proposing a deal involving paper money you have on your person > to your fellow passengers on the Titanic; that is the essence of your > proposed bet hedging. Having studied the market for IPv4, it is a no- > brainer to realise the driving force behind all these schemes. Delaying > the

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Owen DeLong wrote: On Nov 17, 2021, at 21:33 , Joe Maimon wrote: And I think the basic contention is that the vast majority of 127/8 is not in use. Apples to oranges, indeed. This contention is provably false for some definitions of “in use”. Determining the extent of this would be pa

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Can you be more specific about what changes to IPv6 you believe would resolve the issue? Owen > On Nov 18, 2021, at 01:43 , b...@uu3.net wrote: > > No, you are not alone. This just gets kinda pathetic. > It also shows how an IPv6 is a failure. > (No please, leave me alone all you IPv6 zealots)

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 17, 2021, at 21:33 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Mark Andrews wrote: >> >>> On 18 Nov 2021, at 11:58, Joe Maimon wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Mark Andrews wrote: It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up drafts like this that are never going to

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 17, 2021, at 19:40 , Jerry Cloe wrote: > > > > Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public > To: nanog 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-127-0

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On Nov 17, 2021, at 16:32 , Sean Donelan wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: >> That's over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's >> just >> me. So many things are just me. > > Someone is wrong on the Internet. > https://xkcd.com/386/ > > Other

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, th

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Mans Nilsson wrote: The essence of an IP address is that it is unique. The larger the network area is that recognizes it as unique, the better it is. With proper layering, network addresses including IP ones, certainly, uniquely identify *hosts*. However, with proper layering, *applications*

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:20 PM Måns Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Thu, Nov 18, > 2021 at 01:46:04PM -0800 Quoting William Herrin (b...@herrin.us): > > The detractors for this proposal and those like it make the core claim > >

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Subject: Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Date: Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 01:46:04PM -0800 Quoting William Herrin (b...@herrin.us): > > The detractors for this proposal and those like it make the core claim > that we shouldn't take the long view improving IPv4 because IPv6

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Time comes at you fast :-) The POSIX committee has officially adopted 64-bit time_t as a requirement in the working draft of IEEE Std. 1003.1-202x and ISO/IEC 9945. One thing to cross off my list. And I was looking forward to all the time machines crashing into the University of California

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On November 18, 2021 at 11:15 c...@tzi.org (Carsten Bormann) wrote: > On 2021-11-18, at 00:29, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > > > > This seems like a really bad idea > > Right up there with the FUSSP. They do have one thing in common which is people will immediately shoot down proposals becaus

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:40 PM Fred Baker wrote: > I'm not sure what has changed in the past lotsa years other > than which prefix people want to make essentially the same > arguments about. My observation has been that people don't > want to extend the life of IPv4 per se; people want to keep u

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Fred Baker wrote: I have read through this thread, and you'll pardon me if it sounds like yet another rehash on yet another list. You might take a look at https://packetlife.net/blog/2010/oct/14/ipv4-exhaustion-what-about-class-e-addresses/, which responds to https://datatracker.ietf.org/do

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

I have read through this thread, and you'll pardon me if it sounds like yet another rehash on yet another list. You might take a look at https://packetlife.net/blog/2010/oct/14/ipv4-exhaustion-what-about-class-e-addresses/, which responds to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-cla

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:14 AM Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > I could be wrong, but I don't think expanding 1918 was the goal of these > proponents Hi Jay, I would be happy with the compromise where the addresses are assigned to "unicast; reserved." We can fight over exactly what unicast use the

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

- Original Message - > From: "Justin Keller" > I'd be fine if newish devices use it like a 1918 but I don't think > it's worth the headache and difficulty of making it globally routed. > Maybe Amazon could use it too I could be wrong, but I don't think expanding 1918 was the goal of the

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 08:53:53 -0800 Jonathan Kalbfeld via NANOG wrote: > If we’re going to do something that Majorly Breaks the Internet(tm), > why not talk about the 240/4 space instead? I like the proposal that suggest include a plan to reuse 224/4 (with the exception of 224.0.0.0/24, but it

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Jonathan Kalbfeld via NANOG wrote: How much runway would a single /8 give us? Up to 65280 /24's becoming available through registrars would be quite welcome to lots of small organizations or startups. Is it worth the headache to gain a single /8 ? I support serious consideration be give

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

How much runway would a single /8 give us? Is it worth the headache to gain a single /8 ? If we’re going to do something that Majorly Breaks the Internet(tm), why not talk about the 240/4 space instead? We can’t fight address exhaustion on the supply side. The only way to fix IPv4 exhausti

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

I'd be fine if newish devices use it like a 1918 but I don't think it's worth the headache and difficulty of making it globally routed. Maybe Amazon could use it too On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 6:31 PM Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > > This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who n

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

This is actually worse than our collective progress on replacing v4 to date. -jim On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:31 PM 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 > > Th

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On 17 Nov 2021, at 6:29 PM, 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 Workgroup: Internet Engineering Task Force Internet-Draft: draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127

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 C

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On 2021-11-18, at 00:29, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > > This seems like a really bad idea Right up there with the FUSSP. https://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html Someone should write a page like that about the FUSIAS (final ultimate solution to the IPv4 address shortage) proposals. G

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

It’s being discussed on Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29246420 > On Nov 17, 2021, at 3:29 PM, 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 > >

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

No, you are not alone. This just gets kinda pathetic. It also shows how an IPv6 is a failure. (No please, leave me alone all you IPv6 zealots). I think its time to go back to design board and start working on IPv8 ;) so we finnaly get rid of IPv4... -- Original message -- From: J

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Mark Andrews wrote: On 18 Nov 2021, at 11:58, Joe Maimon wrote: Mark Andrews wrote: It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up drafts like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is in use. It isn’t free. There are so many things wrong with this

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On 11/18/21 01:29, 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 over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's just me. So many things are ju

RE: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

    Subject:Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public To:nanog ; 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   I can think of about a dozen /8's that would be better to use. (Hint, they all hav

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On 18 Nov 2021, at 11:58, Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Mark Andrews wrote: >> It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up >> drafts like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is in use. It >> isn’t free. > > There are so many things wrong with this s

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

Mark Andrews wrote: It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up drafts like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is in use. It isn’t free. There are so many things wrong with this statement that I am not even going to try to enumerate them. Howeve

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: That's over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's just me. So many things are just me. Someone is wrong on the Internet. https://xkcd.com/386/ Other problems which will occur sooner: 1. Unix 32-bit time_t overflow. 2. North

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:29:49PM +, 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 over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's just

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 01:45:04PM -1000, scott wrote: > On 11/17/2021 1:29 PM, 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 > > https://github.com/schoen/unic

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

It’s a denial of service attack on the IETF process to keep bringing up drafts like this that are never going to be approved. 127/8 is in use. It isn’t free. Lots of bad attempts to justify a bad idea. "The IPv4 network 127/8 was first reserved by Jon Postel in 1981 [RFC0776]. Postel's policy

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:31 PM 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 Hi Jay, I think it's a good idea. It won't be usable any time in the next two decades but i

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On 11/17/2021 1:29 PM, 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 over a week old and I don't see 3000 comments on it, so maybe it's just me. So many things are j