On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 04:10:07PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 26 Nov 2014, at 14:06, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What's wrong with 127.0.0.1? It makes it clear what the intent is, and > > you don't get a much more distributed sinkhole than that... > > I'm always wary of using 127.0.0.1 for anything that doesn't really mean "you > should talk to yourself". Without a comprehensive knowledge of the impact, > you don't know what you're blowing up. > > > If there really is a use case, let's try and get a block allocated, > > and encourage folk to anycast -> null0 for this. > > https://github.com/ableyjoe/draft-jabley-well-known-sinkhole > > Needs text. Not submitted. Co-authors welcome.
Would it make sense to also mention an probably seperate address which should generate host unreachables? This should most likely be rate limited and probably tcp only or something. For certain scenarios a quick "nothing here" could be useful E.g. sending smtp backscatter to a sink-hole or botnet command and control server. Flo -- Florian Lohoff [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
