Several of my cameras (multi models) are trying to access <203.0.113.2> which is blocked by my firewall rules. A Whois search reveals that the address is in a block reserved for documentation - RFC5737 - RFC 5737: IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation - which states
"Three IPv4 unicast address blocks are reserved for use in examples in
specifications and other documents. This document describes the use
of these blocks."
"The blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2),
and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3) are provided for use in
documentation."
"Addresses within the TEST-NET-1, TEST-NET-2, and TEST-NET-3 blocks
SHOULD NOT appear on the public Internet and are used without any
coordination with IANA or an Internet registry [RFC2050]. Network
operators SHOULD add these address blocks to the list of non-
routeable address spaces, and if packet filters are deployed, then
this address block SHOULD be added to packet filters.
These blocks are not for local use, and the filters may be used in
both local and public contexts."
I expect that the attempt to access this address is just some leftover from code debugging that did not get removed. Even without my firewall rules the address should be blocked at multiple points within the internet. Has anyone else seen this or have an alternative explanation?

"Three IPv4 unicast address blocks are reserved for use in examples in
specifications and other documents. This document describes the use
of these blocks."
"The blocks 192.0.2.0/24 (TEST-NET-1), 198.51.100.0/24 (TEST-NET-2),
and 203.0.113.0/24 (TEST-NET-3) are provided for use in
documentation."
"Addresses within the TEST-NET-1, TEST-NET-2, and TEST-NET-3 blocks
SHOULD NOT appear on the public Internet and are used without any
coordination with IANA or an Internet registry [RFC2050]. Network
operators SHOULD add these address blocks to the list of non-
routeable address spaces, and if packet filters are deployed, then
this address block SHOULD be added to packet filters.
These blocks are not for local use, and the filters may be used in
both local and public contexts."
I expect that the attempt to access this address is just some leftover from code debugging that did not get removed. Even without my firewall rules the address should be blocked at multiple points within the internet. Has anyone else seen this or have an alternative explanation?
