[120360] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: sink.arpa question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Thu Dec 17 22:33:10 2009
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:31:50 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Ted Hardie <hardie@oakthorn.com>
In-Reply-To: <1261091772.17216@mule.he.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 03:16:12PM -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Silly question: how well would using 1.0.0.257.in-addr.arpa match the
> need identified in draft-jabley-sink-arpa ?
>
> It seems like it would be equally well guaranteed to be non-existant
> (short of change in the def of IPv4 and in-addr.arpa). Like
> sink.arpa, it would get you a valid SOA and nothing else.
>
> Am I missing something, or is this operationally equivalent?
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
which is likely to be a more persistent as a non-existant
delegation? the forward space is almost entirely controlled
by simple policy - while the reverse tree has some more structure
around its non-existant state... imho of course.
--bill
