Mark Andrews wrote:
On 18 Nov 2021, at 11:58, Joe Maimon <jmai...@chl.com> 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 statement that I am not even going to
try to enumerate them.
However suffice it to say that drafts like these are concrete documentation of
non-groupthink and essentially you are advocating for self-censorship and loss
of historical perspective.
I’m advocating for not taking address away that have been allocated for a
purpose. No one knows what the impact of doing that will be. Perhaps we
should just take back 216.222.144.0/20? You obviously think taking back
address that are in use to be a good thing. This is similar to taking back
other address that are allocated but not advertised.
I am advocating for serious discussion on the merits, and only the
merits, of each individual idea and proposal and to respect those
willing to put in the effort even while likely knowing of the undeserved
scorn bound to come their way from those who choose not do as I would
advocate them doing.
And I think the basic contention is that the vast majority of 127/8 is
not in use. Apples to oranges, indeed.
You can script is to the same extent that you can hard code 127/8 addresses.
I’ve used ULA addresses but conceptually they are the same. The lo0 interface
also has more that 127.0.0.1 IPv4 addresses on it.
% ifconfig lo0 inet6
lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384
options=1203<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,TXSTATUS,SW_TIMESTAMP>
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 .
inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
inet6 fd92:7065:b8e:ffff::1 prefixlen 64
Thats twice now you have suggested that ULA and LLA are an exact
substitute for dedicated system loopback prefix.
At the very least, it is semantically not.
Doesnt IPv6 deserve its own instead of squatting on IPv4?
Joe
