Pavel Kankovsky <peakat_private> writes: > I'd try injecting a bogus route to some reserved address (netblock). Nice idea. RFC3330 is full of them. Maybe 192.0.34.166 (= example.com) which BTW is _not_ part of test-net (192.0.2.0) as the RFC said. or maybe an address in test-net? > Perhaps the infamous "link local" 169.254.0.0/16? What's the use of this, exactly? I understood that it is a backup address pool when no address has been set and no DHCP answers. > People using reserved addresses who might be harmed by such a test > deserve to lose anyway. > The bad news is that routers might ignore routes to reserved/invalid > address even if they accept routes to ordinary addresses. Then example.com looks good: it is inside 192.0.0.0/24 and RFC 3330 says that "the basis for the reservation no longer applies and addresses in this block are subject to future allocation to a Regional Internet Registry for assignment in the normal manner".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 13:56:53 PDT