[122002] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How polluted is 1/8?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Wed Feb 3 15:19:44 2010
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:19:16 -0500 (EST)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder@Opus1.COM>
In-Reply-To: <4B69D81F.9050709@opus1.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Joel M Snyder wrote:
> This information is very different from the RIPE Labs experiment which I
> think showed that certain "obvious" addresses (1.1.1.1 seemed to be the
> kicker in my short reading of their report) were being mis-used heavily.
> But I suspect that 27/8 would have similar issues to 45/8.
I would hope that the APNIC would opt not to assign networks that would
contain 1.1.1.1 or 1.2.3.4 to customers for exactly that reason. The
signal-to-noise ratio for those addresses is likely pretty high. The
noise is likely contained on many internal networks for now because a
corresponding route doesn't show up in the global routing table at the
moment. Once that changes....
I could see holding those prefixes aside for research purposes (spam
traps, honey pots, etc...).
jms
