On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Doug Barton wrote:
I think this also opens up a question about the motivation for this
draft. Is it primarily to reduce spurious traffic to the roots and/or
AS112 (certainly a noble goal, don't get me wrong), or is it primarily
to aid operators in configuring helpful defaults? If the latter I
Putting on my AS112 hat on: Yes. Taking it off, yes to both questions.
Section 4.3
[snipping out proposed inclusion of other space.]
I think I know the gist of what you're trying to do here.
W.r.t inclusion of other address space in the amended and proposed new
sections, I would say that including *reserved* space as opposed to
*unallocated* space is a good idea in principle. I make this distinction,
because I would hate to see this draft go to the other extreme and propose
to create a DNS version of a 'bogon-prefix-list', as unallocated space
does tend to get allocated, and people's bogon filters don't rapidly
change to suit. This creates all sorts of nifty routing problems. :-)
wfms
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
