Chris Lewis wrote:
Look closer, Doug. It's the same solution.
It should be, because the guy who introduced it in that posting to
NANOG, is the same person who introduced it where we saw it ;-)
Whoops, not quite, it takes into account that you shouldn't put IPs in
NS records. A worked example like the NANOG one using 127 addresses
would perhaps be best for the BCP. Should touch base with Jon to see
why he used 192.0 instead of 127.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg