[sig-policy] prop-109v001: Allocate and to APNIC L

  • To: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-109v001: Allocate and to APNIC Labs as Research Prefixes
  • From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
  • Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:19:50 +1300
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:dkim-signature:x-google-dkim-signature:x-gm-message-state: x-received:mime-version:received:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=IxigpMVWuZ4qDBFV8f4lwZvt9ShP/N2YWfVtRGQP6VY=; b=baufUATh0vLuQJq3GMbOAQfzG1mVaMglgD8bpNGRjWFzezikIFrHbO9VhIsG4Gw52WfpIf9Rp4liZ 0baMwqlAUzB/Lqh11CI7bj1oBvtisGxfzWepQkUEA4KlDmz8JaD/PNWiC0Ax5dv4x/hu8qoCE+j0Fa ORwrzeYJXpIefm64=
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lpnz.org; s=dkim; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=IxigpMVWuZ4qDBFV8f4lwZvt9ShP/N2YWfVtRGQP6VY=; b=daQDe8Mfq0h3KK+5bnuLEm6NolsUg45IqGQnBBc1u16vTnfz8kVt5OYw8CJ7AZD4QM lfpwkpH+IOCFSf92XDnjyP1IjHdk9IW0wPD8TvXW7SY937PkRLS8wEC/snNGg/AmedRa qejVx+SKJBjwHC+APbzcoXZje45dfuK2lIBP0=
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
    • Dear SIG members

      The proposal "prop-109v001: Allocate and to APNIC
      Labs as Research Prefixes" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It
      will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 37 in Petaling Jaya,
      Malaysia, on Thursday, 27 February 2014.

      We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
      before the meeting.

      The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
      important part of the policy development process. We encourage you to
      express your views on the proposal:

      Â Â Â- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
      Â Â Â- Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
      Â Â Â Âtell the community about your situation.
      Â Â Â- Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
      Â Â Â- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
      Â Â Â- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
      Â Â Â Âeffective?

      Information about this policy proposals is available from:

      Andy, Masato

      prop-109v001: Allocate and to APNIC Labs as
      Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Research Prefixes

      Proposer: Â Â Â ÂGeoff Huston, gih at apnic dot net

      1. Problem statement

      Â ÂNetwork 1 ( was allocated to APNIC by the IANA on 19
      Â ÂJanuary 2010. In line with standard practice APNIC's Resource Quality
      Â ÂAssurance activities determined that 95% of the address space would
      Â Âbe suitable for delegation as it was found to be relatively free of
      Â Âunwanted traffic [1].

      Â ÂTesting, conducted by APNIC R&D found that certain blocks within
      Â ÂNetwork 1 attract significant amounts of unsolicited incoming
      Â Âtraffic. [2]

      Â ÂAnalysis revealed that, prior to any delegations being made from the
      Â Âblock, attracted an average of 140Mbps - 160Mbps of
      Â Âincoming traffic as a continuous sustained traffic level, with peak
      Â Âbursts of over 800Mbps. This analysis highlighted the individual
      Â Âaddresses as the single address with the highest level of
      Â Âunsolicited traffic, and it was recommended that the covering /24
      Â Âprefix, and also be withheld from allocation pending a
      Â Âdecision as to the longer term disposition of these address prefixes.

      Â ÂAs these addresses attract extremely high levels of unsolicited
      Â Âincoming traffic, the blocks have been withheld from allocation and
      Â Âperiodically checked to determine if the incoming traffic profile has
      Â Âaltered. None has been observed to date. After four years, it now
      Â Âseems unlikely there will ever be any change in the incoming traffic
      Â Âprofile.

      Â ÂThis proposal is intended to define a long term approach to the
      Â Âmanagement of and

      2. Objective of policy change

      Â ÂThe objective of this proposal is to allocate and
      Â Â1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs, to be used as research prefixes.

      3. Situation in other regions

      Â ÂOther RIRs (notably the RIPE NCC) have used their policy process to
      Â Âreview self-allocations of number resources to the RIR as a means of
      Â Âensuring transparency of the address allocation process. This
      Â Âproposal is consistent with such a practice.

      4. Proposed policy solution

      Â ÂThis proposal recommends that the APNIC community agree to allocate
      Â Â1.0.0.0/24 and to APNIC Labs as research prefixes. The
      Â Âintent is to use these prefixes as passive traffic collectors in
      Â Âorder to generate a long term profile of unsolicited traffic in the
      Â ÂIPv4 internet that is directed to well known addresses to study
      Â Âvarious aspects of traffic profiles and route scope leakages.

      Â ÂAn experiment in gathering a profile of unsolicited traffic directed
      Â Âat was started by APNIC Labs in 2013, in collaboration
      Â Âwith Google. This experiment was set up as a temporary exercise to
      Â Âunderstand the longer term trend of the traffic profile associated
      Â Âwith this address. Through this policy proposal we would like to
      Â Âplace this research experiment on a more certain longer term
      Â Âfoundation.

      5. Advantages / Disadvantages


      Â Â- It will make use of this otherwise unusable address space.

      Â Â- The research analysis may assist network operators to understand
      Â Â Âthe effectiveness of route scoping approaches.


      Â Â- The proposer is unclear what the downsides to this action may be.
      Â Â ÂThe consideration of this proposal by the community may allow
      Â Â Âpotential downsides to be identified.

      6. Impact on APNIC

      Â ÂThere are no impacts on APNIC.


      Â Â[1] Resource Quality Good for Most of IPv4 Network â1â

      Â Â[2] Traffic in Network