Re: sink.arpa question

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

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