At 8:01 PM -0500 2/9/07, Chris Lewis imposed structure on a stream
of electrons, yielding:
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.
I believe his idea is that it would always go out on the wire for any
machine instead of into the possibly less uniform world of loopback
handling.
I am not sure that makes a significant difference, except that in
some environments the packet on the wire to a 192.0.2/24 address will
elicit an explicit response rather than go off into nowhere, while on
many (most?) hosts a packet to a 127/8 address other than 127.0.0.1
will stay on the machine and get no response. On the good side, a lot
of packets aimed at 192.0.2/24 on a path through default gateways may
be noticeable to someone who can slap the mail admin to attention.
--
Bill Cole
bill(_at_)scconsult(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg