Info & FAQ |  Resource services |  Training |  Meetings |  Membership |  Documents |  Whois & Search |  Internet community

You're here:  Home  Mailing Lists sig-policy 

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[sig-policy] Fwd: [Sig-policy-chair] DRAFT### Final Comment Period: prop-109: Allocate and to APNIC Labs as Research Prefixes

Dear colleagues

Version 1 of prop-109v001: Allocate and to APNIC
Labs as Research Prefixes, reached consensus at the APNIC 37 Policy SIG
and later at the APNIC Member Meeting.

This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
for the final comment period.

Following the implementation of prop-108: Suggested changes to the APNIC
Policy Development Process, the Comment Period will be 4 weeks. This may
be extended to 8 weeks at the discretion of the Policy SIG Chair.

At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments
made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 37 still holds.

If consensus holds, the Chairs of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive
Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.

ÂÂ - Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
ÂÂ - Deadline for comments:Â 24:00 (UTC+10) Monday, 31 March 2014

Proposal details

Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
links to the APNIC 37 meeting archive, are available at:

ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-109


Andy and Masato

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

Proposer:ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Geoff Huston, gih@apnic.net

1. Problem statement

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

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

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

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

ÂÂ This proposal is intended to define a long term approach to the
ÂÂ management of and

2. Objective of policy change

ÂÂ The objective of this proposal is to allocate and
ÂÂ to APNIC Labs, to be used as research prefixes.

3. Situation in other regions

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

4. Proposed policy solution

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

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

5. Advantages / Disadvantages


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

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


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

6. Impact on APNIC

ÂÂ There are no impacts on APNIC.


ÂÂ [1] Resource Quality Good for Most of IPv4 Network â1â
ÂÂ http://www.apnic.net/publications/press/releases/2010/network-1.pdf

ÂÂ [2] Traffic in Network
ÂÂ http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-03/net1.html