Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration
One of authors, I declare that we will modify prop-115 moving its
version4 such as follows.
(1) removal of description about IPv4
(2) focus on IPv6 operation
Before removing IPv4 section, I put here our original thoughts.
Recently ISPs uses CGN(double NATs with sharing Addresses technology) in
their IPv4 network. Under this condition, users share one address with
several users and divided by port ranges. For filtering issue,
to identify one harmful address is not enough to filter out, port range
information is also needed.
That is why we pick up the port rages in the document.
About (2)IPv6 part, we thought whois DB is better to use because all the
allocation and assignment information on it and the information will be
well maintained. And the information is keeping confident.
But we do not think the using whois DB is the only way.
We want to know other opinion.
I think current dicsussion points are
A) using whois DB for network operation is not good
if so, is there another way? We have alternatives?
B) basically proactive filtering is not impossible or useless
there is no solution for proactive approach? only do reactive?
C) ISP is not want to insert detailed information
this fall into the cost discussion on additional information into
whois DB vs protection of their network. I want to real comment from
ISPs. Is there person knowing about its cost?
If I missed other points, please let me know.
Tell me what do you think about the A)-C)?
Thanks in advance,
Ruri Hiromi/INTEC Inc.
On 2015/09/16 10:51, (Tomohiro -INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎 智宏) wrote:
>
> Yamanishi-san,
>
> | but I expect the author to improve prop-115 based on the discussion and the
> | survey result.
>
> Sure. We'll revise our policy draft, as discussed at Jakarta.
>
> We had some opposite opinion to provide IPv4 port information, but
> had some interests to provide IPv6 assignment information.
>
> In other mail, we'll explain the case in which Iv4 port range
> information will be useful again (but this IPv4 information part will
> be removed from next proposal).
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> --
> Tomohiro Fujisaki
>
>
>
> From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com>
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-115 returned to author for further consideration
> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:49:12 +0900
>
> | Aftab and All,
> |
> | I'm very sorry that I didn't express myself well in the meeting and in the
> | report,
> | (please understand that Adam and I should make this report in 15mins)
> | but I expect the author to improve prop-115 based on the discussion and the
> | survey result.
> |
> | Regards,
> | Masato Yamanishi
> | APNIC SIG Chair
> |
> | 2015-09-14 22:13 GMT+09:00 Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com>:
> |
> | >
> | > I believe, "pushed back to mailing list for discussion" and "returned the
> | > proposal to authors for further consideration" are two different things.
> | >
> | > *From Transcript:*
> | >
> | > So I need to decide how to proceed with this proposal
> | >
> | > itself.
> | >
> | > Let me push back this proposal to the mailing list
> | >
> | > and also ask to have such survey to the AMM this
> | >
> | > evening. Is it okay?
> | >
> | >
> | > *From AMM Report:*
> | >
> | >
> | > [image: Screenshot 2015-09-14 23.07.34.png]
> | >
> | >
> | >>
> | >> Version 3 of prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information
> | >> in whois DB, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 40 Open
> | >> Policy Meeting.
> | >>
> | >> The Policy SIG Chair requested the Secretariat conduct further research
> | >> into the problem statement and returned the proposal to the authors for
> | >> further consideration.
> | >>
> | >>
> | > Best Wishes,
> | >
> | > Aftab A. Siddiqui.
> | >
> * 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
>