Thinking about this a little more, it seems to me that there's no really good argument for doing this.

The stated problem (DNS Anycast Servers) can easily be solved using either an IPv6 subnet anycast address, an IPv6 anycast address, or an IPv6 multicast address.

The unstated problem (figuring out something useful to do with this noisy dreggs of the bottom of the IPv4 barrel prefix) really doesn't need to be solved. It's not like this is the only unusable /24 in the IPv4 space.

Owen

On Jan 26, 2014, at 22:59 , Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Geoff,
 
If you are referring to a visible routing advertisement for 1.2.3.0/24 in the global BGP routing tables, then nothing has been seen of this prefix.

Well, actually this is good, I wrongly assumed otherwise.
 
If you are referring to the use of individual addresses drawn from this prefix in local contexts, then the profile of unsolicited traffic that is directed to this address points to an inference of a considerable level of local use of this prefix, which of course if unauthorised local use given that this prefix has not been allocated or assigned for end use.

If you are referring to further studies of the "dark traffic" in 1.2.3.0/24 as a followup to the original work in 2010, then we have not performed any followup analysis of this prefix since then, but as the incoming traffic was so large at the time, and the studies on 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 point to increasing traffic since then, there is no reason to believe that the fate of 1.2.3.0/24 is any different

Just checked 2 days of flows and surprisingly (naive) enough even our network is adding around 1M of such traffic towards 1.2.3.0/24.
 
Is this prefix useable in local contexts? Its a balance between this unauthorised use and the associated traffic profile associated with this address, and the desire of some operators to use "memorable" IP addresses for DNS services. Some folk may find this attractive, despite the downside of associated noise, while others will continue to use "quieter" IP addresses for such a service.
 
Speaking about "memorable", I quick whois suggest that 103.0.0.0/24 is also available. Not as memorable as 1.2.3.0/24 but I guess less prone to unwanted incoming traffic. I'm definitely in favour of having a prefix for anycast but 1.2.3.0/24 is not going to help in anyways. But you are the stats guru you can suggest better.

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui 
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy