Re: [sig-policy] prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APN
(2014/02/04 4:00), Geoff Huston wrote:
>
> 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.
Ok,thanks.
I just wanted to know the traffic trend of 1.0.0.0/24,1.1.1.0/24,1.2.3.0/24 was changed from 2010 or not.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
Oh I see.
This address rage already assigned to APNIC.
So APNIC can decide to allocate this address to APNIC organization.
I understood.
Thanks for your explanation.
Regards,
-Shishio
>
> 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
>
> .
>