How polluted is 1/8?
Justin M. Streiner
streiner at cluebyfour.org
Wed Feb 3 14:19:16 CST 2010
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Joel M Snyder wrote:
> This information is very different from the RIPE Labs experiment which I
> think showed that certain "obvious" addresses (188.8.131.52 seemed to be the
> kicker in my short reading of their report) were being mis-used heavily.
> But I suspect that 27/8 would have similar issues to 45/8.
I would hope that the APNIC would opt not to assign networks that would
contain 184.108.40.206 or 220.127.116.11 to customers for exactly that reason. The
signal-to-noise ratio for those addresses is likely pretty high. The
noise is likely contained on many internal networks for now because a
corresponding route doesn't show up in the global routing table at the
moment. Once that changes....
I could see holding those prefixes aside for research purposes (spam
traps, honey pots, etc...).
More information about the NANOG