Is there anyone who want to continue this proposal?
Yoshinobu Matsuzaki (IIJ): Let me clarify why I oppose to the prop-110, because it's creating a new security risk. Once the broadband router is set with default setting, that DNS reserve the 1.2.3.4, if there's no DNS server maintained by ISP, probably it's query to the DNS server in the Internet, and sometimes it's maintained by good guy, but sometimes it could be maintained by bad boy. Right?
As such, I am not saying that a bad network operator could not announce 1.2.3.4, and wait for people to use him. I am saying that this is not an additional danger, many people already use 8.8.8.8. and 4.4.2.2, for example, or OpenDNS.
And any person deciding to announce 1.2.3.0/24 to the open network, would have to face a massive traffic storm anyway. prop-109 by Geoff Huston mentions the traffic flowing to certain easily-remembered ranges. Assuming that 1.2.3.0/24 gets even 50Mbps of traffic if I announce it to the Internet, that is till still an expensive pipe, and probably not worth it on the off-chance that a random user will use it and allow "evil me" to redirect him to the particular bank that he is a member of, and which I am forging a website for.
To summarize, there is no ADDITIONAL danger, and there are some advantages to this proposal. I would like work on this proposal to continue, and see if we can address the concerns raised at the APNIC Meeting.(BTW, I see that AS15169, Google, is still advertising 1.2.3.0/24. This may be due to the APNIC-YouTube experiment).