To:
Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
cc:
<dnsop@cafax.se>
From:
Mats Dufberg <dufberg@nic-se.se>
Date:
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:09:47 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To:
<Pine.SOL.4.33.0202140859140.16639-100000@virgo.cus.cam.ac.uk>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt
On Feb 14, 2002, 09:03 (-0000) Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > # 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. I see your point, but I still think that it would be a good idea to point out that there are other bad address ranges than just localhost and RFC 1918 private address space. It does not mean that it should be an exhaustive list. Mats ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mats Dufberg <dufberg@nic-se.se> ----------------------------------------------------------------------