Yeah I think this is a bit of a radical proposal to accept at present.
I'm not convinced we should be supporting CGN in this way, nor am I a
fan of seeing more and more information make it into Whois which might
not be the best place.
I would like to hear more from Hiromi-san about the problem statement
and how this might be solved, but I'm not at all sure I would support
the current proposal.
Would it be possible to withdraw the proposal and use the scheduled
time during the Policy Sig for an informational session to allow
Hiromi-san to present to the community the problem here?
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
I don’t believe the proposal offers enough benefit to be worth what
implementation would likely
cost.
First, I am sincerely hoping that CGN is an extremely temporary situation.
I’m not sure
it should be worth the effort to recode the registry to support it.
Second, I’m wondering if there’s any real advantage to having this level of
detail on
residential subscribers that don’t even get full addresses, since we don’t
really tend
to have it for single-address subscribers now.
IMHO, best to just let each ISP keep this information for themselves as the
relevant contact
for abuse and such is usually the ISP and not the residential user anyway.
Owen
On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:53 , Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
And, here is prop-115. No comment has not been made for this proposal.
If reached consensus, it may needs significant change for whois database.
I just reviewed implementation impact assessment by the Secretariat,
and it says it might take more than 6 months.
I think same thing will happen for whois database of each NIRs.
And if your company have a system linked with APNIC/NIR whois database, it
will be impacted also.
As Chair, I'm always very neutral for each proposal, including prop-115.
However, I would like to emphasis prop-115 should be discussed more widely
as it has wide impact.
It is very appreciated if you will express your views.
Regards,
Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
2015-02-04 14:52 GMT-06:00 Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com:
Dear SIG members
The Problem statement "Registration of detailed assignment information
in whois DB" has been assigned a Policy Proposal number following the
submission of a new version sent to the Policy SIG for consideration.
The proposal, "prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment
information in whois DB" now includes an objective and proposed solution.
Information about this and earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115
You are encouraged you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
tell the community about your situation.
- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
effective?
Regards,
Masato
prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in
whois DB
Proposer: Ruri Hiromi
hiromi@inetcore.com
Tomohiro Fujisaki
fujisaki@syce.net
- Problem statement
Recently, there are some cases need to get IP address assignment
information in more detail to specify user IP address.
With out this information, operators cannot filter out specific
address range, and it might lead to 'over-filter' (i.e. filtering
whole ISP's address range).
For example:
1) 'Port' range information in IPv4
ISPs are using 'CGN' or other kinds of IPv4 address sharing
technology with assignment of IP address and specified port
range to their users.
In this case, port information is necessary to specify one user.
ex) 192.0.2.24/32 1-256 is for HomeA
192.0.2.24/32 257-511 is for HomeB
or 192.0.2.0/24 1-65536 is shared address of ISP-X
minimum size is /32
2) address assignment size information in IPv6
The IPv6 address assignment size may be different from ISP to
ISP, and address ranges in one ISP. Address assignment prefix
size will be necessary.
ex) 2001:db8:1::0/56 is for HomeA
2001:db8:1:1::0/48 is for HomeB
or 2001:db8:1::/36's minimum size is /56
- Objective of policy change
Lots of operators look a record when harmful behavior coming to
their network to identify its IP address confirming it can be
filtered or not.
The goal is providing more specific information to support these
actions.
- Situation in other regions
No same regulation/discussion can be seen in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
Provide accurate filtering information generated from whois DB.
For IPv4, propose to add 'port range' information to IP address
entry.
For IPv6, propose to provide 'assignment prefix size' information
for specific IPv6 address.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
registration rule will move to more strict manner.
strict watch and control in registration of database records.
additional record or option will be considered.
privilege for withdrawing detailed information will be set for these
records.
- Impact on APNIC
This might be beyond the scope of using whois DB.
- Other Consideration
For the security reason, this detailed records may be able to see
only by operators.(some kind of user control/privilege setting is
needed)
For hosting services, /32 in IPv4 and /128 in IPv6 registration
should be discussed based on its operability and possibility. But a
harmful activities to filter by IP addresses are coming from hosting
services as well. Here it seemed to be some demands.
References
TBD
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy