Re: [sig-policy] prop-110v001: Designate 22.214.171.124/24 as Anycast to suppor
- To: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-110v001: Designate 126.96.36.199/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure
- From: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:59:08 +0500
- Cc: "sig-policy at apnic dot net SIG List" <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
- 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:mime-version:x-received:received:in-reply-to: references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cUi73RjEDNurqFHM0OJZBfRiCvkG5Hncd2wL8nv1yx8=; b=eQ+Jeew5BRT9qy6cImI6mmyFmOxVz81sr35KTsUlqS/NTziYc6Ell47Fqa7tjAlLIysFycMYoLVSS I5t1GnD0Qn/R+Lzh0HPpg7vcIVMRYI1i1QPRTFWMOSOcNNIkaqdPkDJaKSrMtTvE7LrPnLifDuC784 GOt2BPVJrULPCkeA=
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=cUi73RjEDNurqFHM0OJZBfRiCvkG5Hncd2wL8nv1yx8=; b=mnw8+h2CgU0L6ztfdWzKgtIgUNytkqjF8Yqadhe3p1tHkuEyaXQTUwDX/ML09HI893 j+9IS3cl+xHviAgUrUdNDBBTEYncz4owFiIkXUweyezf4O73xFsZD/QH/oQp4m/+rJg8 NsSfq2QmfYRnob+K9NspMPlOVPlkCRQWse1p1AWJRS+JXUTHFDwGhNmayqc/H4ZOOq1c FPQRRGdDYZnDDZaIPBENQKhdeK2tm4KhRfjjqSw3QYDqj4I7sCgTEsUgkzjW4wLrn+2J 5Cv/LYjzgIGmAlpucqHNT4xr3hKK2C/g7xxBG2pBXq9zZBHxGD04GmAc8I9mCPAb2xL3 Tj/A==
- In-reply-to: <C28A89EA-14DF-4456-B4AE-F6FC8330CDB8 at apnic dot net>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CALS-_OpDgBHuAiaXD1AfS3F+UWnfcePXC3yCrnCHHZYKiDPmDg@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <CAK5YLgfx=Jn4X+Ge+UOjPx6iSRbS4=vsfrEVNggcK7=7CpUFeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEUfUGPVN18AMhet=kd-4krtcYoV+=Eaz+UfU5EBt04gN=_vUA@mail.gmail.com> <CAG5EbHJAWOnVUg=SWekAp9m-9z=rLS1L7FgzfMS1VDjOsB=qJw@mail.gmail.com> <48702F0C-C33D-4AFF-AA13-3A334901CF00@apnic.net> <CAK5YLgcVj0jWcXP0U7=PhNvR33LqBg2C+qtAgVZMSKCA=dBbCw@mail.gmail.com> <C28A89EA-14DF-4456-B4AE-F6FC8330CDB8@apnic.net>
If you are referring to a visible routing advertisement for 188.8.131.52/24 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 184.108.40.206/24 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 220.127.116.11/24 and 18.104.22.168/24 point to increasing traffic since then, there is no reason to believe that the fate of 22.214.171.124/24 is any different
Just checked 2 days of flows and surprisingly (naive) enough even our network is adding around 1M of such traffic towards 126.96.36.199/24.
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 188.8.131.52/24 is also available. Not as memorable as 184.108.40.206/24 but I guess less prone to unwanted incoming traffic. I'm definitely in favour of having a prefix for anycast but 220.127.116.11/24 is not going to help in anyways. But you are the stats guru you can suggest better.
Aftab A. Siddiqui