On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 20:28 +0100 1/11/06, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Martin Hannigan:
You should move 192.88.99.0/24 from SPECIAL to YES (although you shouldn't see source addresses from that prefix, no matter what the folks at bit.nl think). 169.254.0.0/16 should be NO (otherwise it wouldn't be link-local).
Good example as to why to use authoratative sources only.
But most authoritative sources are too shy to make explicit operational recommendations. 8-)
The authoritative sources put the data out there. What more can you ask of them? What more do you want? It's been said that the neutral parties (the authorities are supposed to be neutral) should not make business decisions for the industry. Recommending route filters is a business decision. Operational recommendations in general are business decisions.
Nevertheless I'd prefer to see authoritative source (i.e. ICANN & IANA) be more involved then just text file on a website. For example IETF does more both in terms of notifications (which they sent to multiple lists for each published RFC - with lists being different depending on what RFC its on-topic for) and in terms of information for operational use (i.e. published BCPs and separate OPS area). Ultimately of course IANA is closely related to activities of IETF but I think it does have its own role to play and notifications of changes to its indexes is within its area of responsibility. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net