On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 03:16:12PM -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Silly question: how well would using 1.0.0.257.in-addr.arpa match the
> need identified in draft-jabley-sink-arpa ?
>
> It seems like it would be equally well guaranteed to be non-existant
> (short of change in the def of IPv4 and in-addr.arpa). Like
> sink.arpa, it would get you a valid SOA and nothing else.
>
> Am I missing something, or is this operationally equivalent?
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
which is likely to be a more persistent as a non-existant
delegation? the forward space is almost entirely controlled
by simple policy - while the reverse tree has some more structure
around its non-existant state... imho of course.
--bill
