[Collisions] "controlled interruption" - 127/8 versus RFC1918 space

[Chris Cowherd]

I think the benefits of concentrating on a single IP will reap fruit when
they go searching the Internet for help. I do see your point on using
10.53.53.53 but consider, there may actually be a machine there (its a
stretch but could confuse engineers i.e. Why are you using a printer as an
MTA?).

To an engineer, 127.0.53.53 is unusual enough to alert them as well as not
send them chasing down non-problems.


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:15 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 8:22 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>
> Thoughts?  Value trade between possibly more effective notification vs.
> "protecting the sanctity" of RFC1918 space?
>
> We could also return both values either all times or on the second period
> in a round-robin fashion.
>
>
> I'd be a bit concerned that this would introduce non-determinism into the
> situation.  If 1918 space is going to be used, I'd be more comfortable
> doing a phased approach where its first all from one address (presumably
> 127/8), then all from another address block.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Collisions mailing list
> Collisions at lists.dns-oarc.net
> https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/collisions
>
>


-- 
Chris Cowherd, CTO Donuts Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/collisions/attachments/20140109/596e2eb8/attachment.htm>