Masato-san, With the greatest respect for Tomohiro-san and Ruri-san and yourself, I am very disappointed with your decision to return prop-115 to the list AGAIN for discussion and for a survey.
You asked for consensus on a Survey and asked who was FOR it - no one (I can see)... who was AGAINST - no one (I can see). Your response was "since there is no objection to have such survey" - BUT there was no support either! You've chose to spend money and time of APNICs on something that no one cares about - at all. You say below that the proposal did not reach consensus. NO ONE supporting it - apart from the authors is the definition of consensus - which is that it is *not* supported. It is also now at its third version and there is STILL no support. (for history see https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115) It had no support even in Japan at APNIC 39 - does this not say something that a policy in the home country does not even get up? Masato, why are you keeping this proposal alive? to the point of spending money and resources on it. This is starting to smell like you are looking out for a fellow countryman or APNIC wants it to happen. I would hope as Chair this would not be the case, but all indications point to it as you will not let it die based on the overwhelming lack of support the proposal has. I have nothing against this policy as such... I just think that it is an overhead that the ISPs rather than APNIC needs to do. I am not against it... or for it. But I am against you trying to push along a policy on life-support until people get so bored someone supports it into existence. Community... if you support this proposal... then SHOW you do... here... now. If you do NOT support it, then please (again) also state that you do not - before money is spent on it. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service [email protected] ; www.v4now.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/v4now ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com ; Keybase: https://keybase.io/skeeve IP Address Brokering - Introducing sellers and buyers On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > 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. > > Proposal details > ---------------- > > This proposal seeks to require LIRs to register accurate filtering > information, such as IPv4 port-range information and IPv6 assignment > prefix size. > > Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and > links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115 > > Regards > > Masato and Sumon > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > prop-115-v003: Registration of detailed assignment information in > whois DB > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Proposer: Ruri Hiromi > [email protected] > > Tomohiro Fujisaki > [email protected] > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > > Recently, there are some cases need to get IP address assignment > information in more detail to specify user IP address. > > Without this information, operators cannot filter out specific > address range, and it might lead to 'over-filter' (i.e. filtering > whole ISP's address range). > > For example: > > 1) 'Port' range information in IPv4 > > ISPs are using 'CGN' or other kinds of IPv4 address sharing > technology with assignment of IP address and specified port > range to their users. > > In this case, port information is necessary to specify one user. > > ex) 192.0.2.24/32 1-256 is for HomeA > 192.0.2.24/32 257-511 is for HomeB > > or 192.0.2.0/24 1-65536 is shared address of ISP-X > minimum size is /32 > > 2) address assignment size information in IPv6 > > The IPv6 address assignment size may be different from ISP and > its service estimation. Address assignment prefix size will be > necessary. > > ex) 2001:db8:1::0/56 is for HomeA > 2001:db8:1:1::0/48 is for HomeB > > or 2001:db8:1::/36's minimum size is /56 > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > > Lots of operators look a record when harmful behavior coming to > their network to identify its IP address confirming it can be > filtered or not. > > The goal is providing more specific information to support these > actions. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > > No same regulation/discussion can be seen in other regions. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > > Provide accurate filtering information generated from whois DB. > > For IPv4, propose to add 'port range' information to IP address > entry. > > For IPv6, propose to provide 'assignment prefix size' information > for specific IPv6 address. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > > Advantages: > > - operators can set filtering by IP address based on correct assignment > information base. > > - users who share same address space can be avoid to be including bulk > filtering. > > Disadvantages: > > - registration rule will move to more strict manner. > > - strict watch and control in registration of database records. > > - additional record or option will be considered. > > - privilege for withdrawing detailed information will be set for these > records. > > > 6. Impact on APNIC > ------------------ > > This might be beyond the scope of using whois DB and appropriate > changes in policy document or guidance to whois DB will be needed. > > Some kind of modification cost in whois DB might be needed to set > access privilege to the detailed information. > > Some kind of modification cost in whois DB might be needed in > Help message/Warning/Alert when whois DB has non-privileged access. > > Some kind of promotion cost might be needed in announcing. > > Need cooperation and support from members(ISPs). > > 7. Other Consideration > ---------------------- > > For the security reason, this detailed records may be able to see > only by operators.(some kind of user control/privilege setting is > needed) > > For hosting services, /32 in IPv4 and /128 in IPv6 registration > should be discussed based on its operability and possibility. But a > harmful activities to filter by IP addresses are coming from hosting > services as well. Here it seemed to be some demands. > > Some ISP use IRR DB to notice their filter policy towards BGP > community with "remarks" filed in aut-num record. Need more > discussion among APNIC members on using whois DB versus IRR DB. > > Start a pilot project for research its demands and effectiveness > in APNIC region. APNIC is a worthy body to lead this pilot project. > > There are some opinions that it is not suitable to handle those > issues at the Internet Registries (IRs), but we think it should be > registered in the IRs database since that is part of assignment > information. > > References > ---------- > > TBD > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > >
_______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
