17 Dec
2009
17 Dec
'09
10:31 p.m.
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