Re: [sig-policy] prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APN
On 3 Feb 2014, at 10:03 pm, Shishio Tsuchiya <shtsuchi at cisco dot com> wrote:
> I support this proposal,this is great approach to change useful from harmful address.
> I have some questions.
>
> 1.Current status
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-109/prop-109-v001.txt
>
> Some references are quite old ,2010. Do you have latest data?
> AS15169 has been originating 1.0.0.0/24,1.1.1.0/24,1.2.3.0/24 since around 2012(?).
> So I think APNIC could show how to use this address for Research purpose in more detail.
Google is assisting me with data collection - the analysis of the collected traffic is something that I do from time to time, rather than as a continuous publication. The last article I wrote on this topic was http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-07/dark6.html. It would be good to get some time this year to followup and profile the changes that have occurred in the intervening period.
>
> 2.Roadmap
> This is simple question.
> I felt this proposal should be taken on IETF and IANA should assign this address range as specific purpose.
> How to process this proposal in future?
I'm not sure I understand your question. This is not a case of reserving the addresses, but a case of assigning them to support dark traffic observation, and the IETF is not really in the loop here. Please read http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-number-registries/?include_text=1 for more details on the roles of the IETFG in terms of number reservation.
thanks,
Geoff
>
> Regards,
> -Shishio
>
>
> (2014/01/26 10:19), Andy Linton wrote:
>> Dear SIG members
>>
>> The proposal "prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 <http://1.0.0.0/24> and 1.1.1.0/24 <http://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:
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/109
>>
>> Andy, Masato
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 <http://1.0.0.0/24> and 1.1.1.0/24 <http://1.1.1.0/24> to APNIC Labs as
>> Research Prefixes
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Proposer: Geoff Huston, gih at apnic dot net <mailto:gih at apnic dot net>
>>
>>
>> 1. Problem statement
>> --------------------
>>
>> Network 1 (1.0.0.0/8 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://1.0.0.0/24> and 1.1.1.0/24 <http://1.1.1.0/24>.
>>
>>
>> 2. Objective of policy change
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> The objective of this proposal is to allocate 1.0.0.0/24 <http://1.0.0.0/24> and
>> 1.1.1.0/24 <http://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 <http://1.0.0.0/24> and 1.1.1.0/24 <http://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 <http://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 “1”
>> http://www.apnic.net/publications/press/releases/2010/network-1.pdf
>>
>> [2] Traffic in Network 1.0.0.0/8 <http://1.0.0.0/8>
>> http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-03/net1.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>
>
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy