5 Feb
2011
5 Feb
'11
3:17 a.m.
On 2011-02-05 21:13, Geoff Huston wrote:
On 05/02/2011, at 4:06 PM, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
On 2/4/11 3:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Shouldn't 1.1.1.0/24 and other bogons in 1.0.0.0/8 also be included? Wouldn't that be telling people that it was OK to mis-appropriate 1.1.1.1 or whatever they felt like for their own use. ?
Given that's the address that appears to have been hijacked by cisco for its wifi gear, its a bit later to be attempting to pull that one back from the abyss.
Regardless, I've exchanged some private mail with Leo Vegoda about his draft on this topic, and his conclusion is not to officially list these as bogons, basically for the reason Gaurab gave and in the hope that they will fade away. Brian