RE: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

[Jerry Cloe <jerry () jtcloe net>]

Subject:Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public
To:nanog <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

 
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.