On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:00 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> 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 best > tradeoff.
I would prefer to discuss the other drafts. However, - and this is not in the 127 draft, and is an opinion not shared with the other authors - I have a specific use case for making 127 "more routable", in that there is nowadays a twisty maze of microservices, bottled up in a variety of kubernetes containers, running on top of vms, on top of a hypervisor, that are often hooked together via rfc1918 addressing and NAT. Trying to figure out that particular path, from within one of those containers, can be a PITA. The concept of 127 being local to a physical host (and routed internally, rather than natted), where those twisty maze of services ideally remains within that host, holds some appeal to me. > > Owen > -- I tried to build a better future, a few times: https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
