Re: [sig-policy] prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APN

  • To: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs as Research Prefixes
  • From: Neil Fenemor <neil at underground dot geek dot nz>
  • Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 08:40:29 +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:x-google-dkim-signature:x-gm-message-state:x-received: return-path:received:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version: subject:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:to:x-mailer; bh=8gtBcBKPCr+CsYf2IRf2vwuajtTjS+Ga8sIwBRJgnCg=; b=ho8CL2G5RyWN/FryZNz0zX/V4N2ut1qoT451Gk196Qvspcun2CON6IDHTyQjxlzJXrDc9TV1n5FVy OEOchR1eSw/4x+EFcCj16M6sS0Fa79xi7yiPTRRRfBD5KUANA5ysARhSFekw/TLwkVZJ3jO0grVjt9 6fW+4QU2jqufzWic=
  • In-reply-to: <CALS-_OooDv7pGUhqz0djV0WgAiqV2Sju1153cs=VNL__TV=fuA@mail.gmail.com>
  • 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>
  • References: <CALS-_OooDv7pGUhqz0djV0WgAiqV2Sju1153cs=VNL__TV=fuA@mail.gmail.com>
    • I support this proposal.

      On 26/01/2014, at 14:19, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:

      Dear SIG members

      The proposal "prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 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:

           - 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?


      Information about this policy proposals is available from:


      Andy, Masato


      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs as
                    Research Prefixes
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Proposer:        Geoff Huston, gih at apnic dot net


      1. Problem statement
      --------------------

         Network 1 (1.0.0.0/8) was allocated to APNIC by the IANA on 19
         January 2010. In line with standard practice APNIC's Resource Quality
         Assurance activities determined that 95% of the address space would
         be suitable for delegation as it was found to be relatively free of
         unwanted traffic [1].

         Testing, conducted by APNIC R&D found that certain blocks within
         Network 1 attract significant amounts of unsolicited incoming
         traffic. [2]

         Analysis revealed that, prior to any delegations being made from the
         block, 1.0.0.0/8 attracted an average of 140Mbps - 160Mbps of
         incoming traffic as a continuous sustained traffic level, with peak
         bursts of over 800Mbps. This analysis highlighted the individual
         addresses 1.1.1.1 as the single address with the highest level of
         unsolicited traffic, and it was recommended that the covering /24
         prefix, and also 1.1.1.0/24 be withheld from allocation pending a
         decision as to the longer term disposition of these address prefixes.

         As these addresses attract extremely high levels of unsolicited
         incoming traffic, the blocks have been withheld from allocation and
         periodically checked to determine if the incoming traffic profile has
         altered. None has been observed to date. After four years, it now
         seems unlikely there will ever be any change in the incoming traffic
         profile.

         This proposal is intended to define a long term approach to the
         management of 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24.


      2. Objective of policy change
      -----------------------------

         The objective of this proposal is to allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and
         1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs, to be used as research prefixes.

      3. Situation in other regions
      -----------------------------

         Other RIRs (notably the RIPE NCC) have used their policy process to
         review self-allocations of number resources to the RIR as a means of
         ensuring transparency of the address allocation process. This
         proposal is consistent with such a practice.


      4. Proposed policy solution
      ---------------------------

         This proposal recommends that the APNIC community agree to allocate
         1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs as research prefixes. The
         intent is to use these prefixes as passive traffic collectors in
         order to generate a long term profile of unsolicited traffic in the
         IPv4 internet that is directed to well known addresses to study
         various aspects of traffic profiles and route scope leakages.

         An experiment in gathering a profile of unsolicited traffic directed
         at 1.1.1.0/24 was started by APNIC Labs in 2013, in collaboration
         with Google. This experiment was set up as a temporary exercise to
         understand the longer term trend of the traffic profile associated
         with this address. Through this policy proposal we would like to
         place this research experiment on a more certain longer term
         foundation.

      5. Advantages / Disadvantages
      -----------------------------

      Advantages

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

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

      Disadvantages

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


      6. Impact on APNIC
      ------------------

         There are no impacts on APNIC.

      References
      ----------

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

         [2] Traffic in Network 1.0.0.0/8