Hi Geoff,
> If you are referring to a visible routing advertisement for 1.2.3.0/24 in > the global BGP routing tables, then nothing has been seen of this prefix. > Well, actually this is good, I wrongly assumed otherwise. > If you are referring to the use of individual addresses drawn from this > prefix in local contexts, then the profile of unsolicited traffic that is > directed to this address points to an inference of a considerable level of > local use of this prefix, which of course if unauthorised local use given > that this prefix has not been allocated or assigned for end use. > > If you are referring to further studies of the "dark traffic" in > 1.2.3.0/24 as a followup to the original work in 2010, then we have not > performed any followup analysis of this prefix since then, but as the > incoming traffic was so large at the time, and the studies on 1.0.0.0/24and > 1.1.1.0/24 point to increasing traffic since then, there is no reason to > believe that the fate of 1.2.3.0/24 is any different > Just checked 2 days of flows and surprisingly (naive) enough even our network is adding around 1M of such traffic towards 1.2.3.0/24. > Is this prefix useable in local contexts? Its a balance between this > unauthorised use and the associated traffic profile associated with this > address, and the desire of some operators to use "memorable" IP addresses > for DNS services. Some folk may find this attractive, despite the downside > of associated noise, while others will continue to use "quieter" IP > addresses for such a service. Speaking about "memorable", I quick whois suggest that 103.0.0.0/24 is also available. Not as memorable as 1.2.3.0/24 but I guess less prone to unwanted incoming traffic. I'm definitely in favour of having a prefix for anycast but 1.2.3.0/24 is not going to help in anyways. But you are the stats guru you can suggest better. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
