To:
Mats Dufberg <dufberg@nic-se.se>
cc:
<dnsop@cafax.se>
From:
Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
Date:
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:03:48 +0000 (GMT)
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.BSF.4.30.0202132216430.8992-100000@spider.nic-se.se>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Mats Dufberg wrote: > When writing an application for checking delegations, I identified the > following addresses as "bad" for nameservers of "public" zones: > > # 1. Link 0.0.0.0 plus 0.0.0.0/8 > # 2. Localhost net 127.0.0.0/8 > # 3. Privat net 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16 > # 6. Autoconfiguration for DHCP 169.254.0.0/16 > # 7. Example addresses 192.0.2.0/24 > # 8. Multicast 224.0.0.0/5 (224/8--239/8) > > In the draft 2 (partly) and 3 are included. Should the other addresses > also be included? I didn't want to put in an explicit list, because people would interpret it to be exhaustive. I was trying in the document to establish a principle, not give a recipe. I don't think this is the place to attempt to list all the private addresses - especially with IPv6 at such an early stage with things changing a lot still. 2 is of course a special case, and I mention some of 3 purely as an example. -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service, ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.