Re: The "nomap" Network Identifier Suffix

On Nov 26, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb(_at_)ipv(_dot_)sx> wrote:
> The evil bit is ridiculous because evil people have no incentive to set it 
> (thus nobody would ever look for it to be set).  With the _nomap suffix, the 
> people who would need to set it have an incentive to do so, and at least in 
> certain cases, the entities that might consume it have incentives to obey it 
> as well.
Yup.   Google certainly paid a high price recently for doing something 
analogous to ignoring this suffix.