Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24

2024-05-14 Thread Warren Kumari 
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 1:24 PM, Tom Beecher  wrote:

> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
>> routable.
>>
>

It feels like people are talking past each other when they are saying
"routable" — these are fairly clearly not routable on the Global Internet,
but addresses like 192.0.0.10/32 (the TURN anycast address) look like they
are intended to be routed within a network:
"IP anycast can also be used for TURN service discovery.  A packet
   sent to an anycast address is delivered to the "topologically
   nearest" network interface with the anycast address."

but this is clearly not **supposed** to leak:
"In a network without any TURN server that is aware of the TURN
   anycast address, outgoing TURN requests could leak out onto the
   external Internet, possibly revealing information.

   Using an IANA-assigned well-known TURN anycast address enables border
   gateways to block such outgoing packets.  In the default-free zone,
   routers should be configured to drop such packets."

W


>> So, I would not make this a bogon.
>>
>
> This ignores note 2 on the IANA definitions page, next to 192.0.0.0/24 :
>
>> [2]
>>
>> Not useable unless by virtue of a more specific reservation.
>>
>>  Which then lists the more specific reservations, of which SOME are
> forwardable , and some are not.
>
> The categorization as 'bogon' or not would really be determined by
> individual operator use cases, and where/how such a bogon filter is
> applied.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:23 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG  nanog.org> wrote:
>
>> RFC 5736 was obsoleted by RFC 6890.
>>
>> It says in part:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.2.1.  Information Requirements
>>
>>
>>
>>The IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries maintain the
>>
>>following information regarding each entry:
>>
>> …
>>
>>o  Forwardable - A boolean value indicating whether a router may
>>
>>   forward an IP datagram whose destination address is drawn from the
>>
>>   allocated special-purpose address block between external
>>
>>   interfaces.
>>
>> …
>>
>>
>>
>> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
>> routable.
>>
>> So, I would not make this a bogon.
>>
>>
>>
>> A better way to filter IP routes is by policy, for example based upon
>>
>> IRR and RPKI records.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Jakob
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original message --
>>
>> Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 12:00:15 +0200 (CEST)
>> From: b...@uu3.net
>>
>>
>> [10] 192.0.0.0/24 reserved for IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry
>> [RFC5736]. Complete registration details for 192.0.0.0/24 are found in
>> [IANA registry iana-ipv4-special-registry].
>>
>> Was RFC5736 obsoleted? I think not, so I would treat it as bogon.
>>
>> Its a nice tiny subnet for special purposes. I personaly use it
>> as my Internal VM Net on my desktop for example.
>>
>>
>> -- Original message --
>>
>> From: John Kristoff 
>> To: NANOG 
>> Subject: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24
>> Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:18:47 -0500
>>
>> As one to never let a good academic question go unasked... what is it
>> about 192.0.0.0/24 that is or isn't a bogon. This doesn't seem so
>> straightforward an answer to me, at least in theory.  Although in
>> practice it may already be decided whether one likes the answer or not.
>>
>> 192.0.0.0/24 was originally assigned to IANA for "protocol assignments"
>> in IETF RFC 5736, and later added to the list of reserved / special use
>> addresses in IETF RFC 6890 (aka BCP 153).   There is a corresponding
>> IPv6 block (2001::/23), but it has a significantly different history.
>>
>> Team Cymru's bogon list includes the v4 prefix.  NLNOG's bogon
>> filtering guide does not.  When I asked Job about NLNOG's position he
>> said:
>>
>>   "I was unsure what this prefix??s future plans would be and erred on
>>   the side of caution and didn??t include this prefix in the NLNOG bogon
>>   list recommendations."
>>
>> The /24 as specified is not for "global" use, but some of the more
>> specific assignments are or can be.  See:
>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/
>> iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml>.
>>
>> From my cursory examination I can't find ca

Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24

2024-05-14 Thread borg 
From what I looked at IANA Special Registry, this whole range looks
like some service IPs. I mean, they provide specific service within AS.
From me then, it looks like bogon. You should not receive routing for those
addresses from other AS. (PNI is out of scope here).


-- Original message --

From: Tom Beecher 
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" 
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" 
Subject: Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 13:24:47 -0400

>
> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
> routable.
>
> So, I would not make this a bogon.
>

This ignores note 2 on the IANA definitions page, next to 192.0.0.0/24 :

> [2]
>
> Not useable unless by virtue of a more specific reservation.
>
>  Which then lists the more specific reservations, of which SOME are
forwardable , and some are not.

The categorization as 'bogon' or not would really be determined by
individual operator use cases, and where/how such a bogon filter is
applied.



On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:23˙˙PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG <
nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

> RFC 5736 was obsoleted by RFC 6890.
>
> It says in part:
>
>
>
> 2.2.1.  Information Requirements
>
>
>
>The IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries maintain the
>
>following information regarding each entry:
>
> ˙˙
>
>o  Forwardable - A boolean value indicating whether a router may
>
>   forward an IP datagram whose destination address is drawn from the
>
>   allocated special-purpose address block between external
>
>   interfaces.
>
> ˙˙
>
>
>
> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
> routable.
>
> So, I would not make this a bogon.
>
>
>
> A better way to filter IP routes is by policy, for example based upon
>
> IRR and RPKI records.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jakob
>
>
>
> -- Original message --
>
> Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 12:00:15 +0200 (CEST)
> From: b...@uu3.net
>
>
> [10] 192.0.0.0/24 reserved for IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry
> [RFC5736]. Complete registration details for 192.0.0.0/24 are found in
> [IANA registry iana-ipv4-special-registry].
>
> Was RFC5736 obsoleted? I think not, so I would treat it as bogon.
>
> Its a nice tiny subnet for special purposes. I personaly use it
> as my Internal VM Net on my desktop for example.
>
>
> -- Original message --
>
> From: John Kristoff 
> To: NANOG 
> Subject: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24
> Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:18:47 -0500
>
> As one to never let a good academic question go unasked... what is it
> about 192.0.0.0/24 that is or isn't a bogon. This doesn't seem so
> straightforward an answer to me, at least in theory.  Although in
> practice it may already be decided whether one likes the answer or not.
>
> 192.0.0.0/24 was originally assigned to IANA for "protocol assignments"
> in IETF RFC 5736, and later added to the list of reserved / special use
> addresses in IETF RFC 6890 (aka BCP 153).   There is a corresponding
> IPv6 block (2001::/23), but it has a significantly different history.
>
> Team Cymru's bogon list includes the v4 prefix.  NLNOG's bogon
> filtering guide does not.  When I asked Job about NLNOG's position he
> said:
>
>   "I was unsure what this prefix??s future plans would be and erred on
>   the side of caution and didn??t include this prefix in the NLNOG bogon
>   list recommendations."
>
> The /24 as specified is not for "global" use, but some of the more
> specific assignments are or can be.  See:
> <
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml
> >.
>
> From my cursory examination I can't find cases where the v4 prefix or
> more specifics have been publicly announced to any significant degree.
> This however is not the case for the IPv6 prefix (e.g., the AS112
> project, Teredo).
>
> Maybe you'd say the /24 should be filtered, but not the more specifics
> that are deemed available for global use.  That might be reasonable,
> except many reasonable people will filter small prefixes.
>
> IANA's language may have put any "do not filter" camp in a relatively
> weak position:
>
>   "Address prefixes listed in the Special-Purpose Address Registry are
>   not guaranteed routability in any particular local or global context."
>
> I can't remember hearing anyone complaining about bogon-related
> reachability problems with the aggregate IANA prefixes generally.  Is
> there a strong case to make that ops should not bogon filter any
> addresses in these prefixes?  At least with IPv4?  What about for IPv6?
>
> John
>
>

Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24

2024-05-14 Thread Tom Beecher 
>
> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
> routable.
>
> So, I would not make this a bogon.
>

This ignores note 2 on the IANA definitions page, next to 192.0.0.0/24 :

> [2]
>
> Not useable unless by virtue of a more specific reservation.
>
>  Which then lists the more specific reservations, of which SOME are
forwardable , and some are not.

The categorization as 'bogon' or not would really be determined by
individual operator use cases, and where/how such a bogon filter is
applied.



On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 12:23 PM Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG <
nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

> RFC 5736 was obsoleted by RFC 6890.
>
> It says in part:
>
>
>
> 2.2.1.  Information Requirements
>
>
>
>The IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries maintain the
>
>following information regarding each entry:
>
> …
>
>o  Forwardable - A boolean value indicating whether a router may
>
>   forward an IP datagram whose destination address is drawn from the
>
>   allocated special-purpose address block between external
>
>   interfaces.
>
> …
>
>
>
> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
> routable.
>
> So, I would not make this a bogon.
>
>
>
> A better way to filter IP routes is by policy, for example based upon
>
> IRR and RPKI records.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Jakob
>
>
>
> -- Original message --
>
> Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 12:00:15 +0200 (CEST)
> From: b...@uu3.net
>
>
> [10] 192.0.0.0/24 reserved for IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry
> [RFC5736]. Complete registration details for 192.0.0.0/24 are found in
> [IANA registry iana-ipv4-special-registry].
>
> Was RFC5736 obsoleted? I think not, so I would treat it as bogon.
>
> Its a nice tiny subnet for special purposes. I personaly use it
> as my Internal VM Net on my desktop for example.
>
>
> -- Original message --
>
> From: John Kristoff 
> To: NANOG 
> Subject: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24
> Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:18:47 -0500
>
> As one to never let a good academic question go unasked... what is it
> about 192.0.0.0/24 that is or isn't a bogon. This doesn't seem so
> straightforward an answer to me, at least in theory.  Although in
> practice it may already be decided whether one likes the answer or not.
>
> 192.0.0.0/24 was originally assigned to IANA for "protocol assignments"
> in IETF RFC 5736, and later added to the list of reserved / special use
> addresses in IETF RFC 6890 (aka BCP 153).   There is a corresponding
> IPv6 block (2001::/23), but it has a significantly different history.
>
> Team Cymru's bogon list includes the v4 prefix.  NLNOG's bogon
> filtering guide does not.  When I asked Job about NLNOG's position he
> said:
>
>   "I was unsure what this prefix??s future plans would be and erred on
>   the side of caution and didn??t include this prefix in the NLNOG bogon
>   list recommendations."
>
> The /24 as specified is not for "global" use, but some of the more
> specific assignments are or can be.  See:
> <
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml
> >.
>
> From my cursory examination I can't find cases where the v4 prefix or
> more specifics have been publicly announced to any significant degree.
> This however is not the case for the IPv6 prefix (e.g., the AS112
> project, Teredo).
>
> Maybe you'd say the /24 should be filtered, but not the more specifics
> that are deemed available for global use.  That might be reasonable,
> except many reasonable people will filter small prefixes.
>
> IANA's language may have put any "do not filter" camp in a relatively
> weak position:
>
>   "Address prefixes listed in the Special-Purpose Address Registry are
>   not guaranteed routability in any particular local or global context."
>
> I can't remember hearing anyone complaining about bogon-related
> reachability problems with the aggregate IANA prefixes generally.  Is
> there a strong case to make that ops should not bogon filter any
> addresses in these prefixes?  At least with IPv4?  What about for IPv6?
>
> John
>
>

Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24

2024-05-14 Thread Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG 
RFC 5736 was obsoleted by RFC 6890.
It says in part:

2.2.1.  Information Requirements

   The IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries maintain the
   following information regarding each entry:
…
   o  Forwardable - A boolean value indicating whether a router may
  forward an IP datagram whose destination address is drawn from the
  allocated special-purpose address block between external
  interfaces.
…

That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be routable.
So, I would not make this a bogon.

A better way to filter IP routes is by policy, for example based upon
IRR and RPKI records.

Kind Regards,
Jakob

-- Original message --
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 12:00:15 +0200 (CEST)
From: b...@uu3.net


[10] 192.0.0.0/24 reserved for IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry
[RFC5736]. Complete registration details for 192.0.0.0/24 are found in
[IANA registry iana-ipv4-special-registry].

Was RFC5736 obsoleted? I think not, so I would treat it as bogon.

Its a nice tiny subnet for special purposes. I personaly use it
as my Internal VM Net on my desktop for example.


-- Original message --

From: John Kristoff 
To: NANOG 
Subject: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:18:47 -0500

As one to never let a good academic question go unasked... what is it
about 192.0.0.0/24 that is or isn't a bogon. This doesn't seem so
straightforward an answer to me, at least in theory.  Although in
practice it may already be decided whether one likes the answer or not.

192.0.0.0/24 was originally assigned to IANA for "protocol assignments"
in IETF RFC 5736, and later added to the list of reserved / special use
addresses in IETF RFC 6890 (aka BCP 153).   There is a corresponding
IPv6 block (2001::/23), but it has a significantly different history.

Team Cymru's bogon list includes the v4 prefix.  NLNOG's bogon
filtering guide does not.  When I asked Job about NLNOG's position he
said:

  "I was unsure what this prefix??s future plans would be and erred on
  the side of caution and didn??t include this prefix in the NLNOG bogon
  list recommendations."

The /24 as specified is not for "global" use, but some of the more
specific assignments are or can be.  See:
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml>.

>From my cursory examination I can't find cases where the v4 prefix or
more specifics have been publicly announced to any significant degree.
This however is not the case for the IPv6 prefix (e.g., the AS112
project, Teredo).

Maybe you'd say the /24 should be filtered, but not the more specifics
that are deemed available for global use.  That might be reasonable,
except many reasonable people will filter small prefixes.

IANA's language may have put any "do not filter" camp in a relatively
weak position:

  "Address prefixes listed in the Special-Purpose Address Registry are
  not guaranteed routability in any particular local or global context."

I can't remember hearing anyone complaining about bogon-related
reachability problems with the aggregate IANA prefixes generally.  Is
there a strong case to make that ops should not bogon filter any
addresses in these prefixes?  At least with IPv4?  What about for IPv6?

John

Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24

2024-05-14 Thread borg 
No, I am not confusing those two. Actually, Im using 192.0.2.0 as well
here, for server's internal SNAT.

Okey, I checked that registry and there is nothing I care about.
It seems the choice to using 192.0.0.0/24 internally at desktop
was smart enough ;)

Thx for info.


-- Original message --

From: John Kristoff 
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 07:29:54 -0500

On Tue, 14 May 2024 12:00:15 +0200 (CEST)
b...@uu3.net wrote:

> Was RFC5736 obsoleted?

No.

> Its a nice tiny subnet for special purposes. I personaly use it

Are you confusing this with 192.0.2.0/24?  192.0.0.0/24 is occasionally
updated with new assignments drawn from it.  Just be aware you're
potentially colliding with some other, new use in that range.

John

Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24

2024-05-14 Thread borg 
[10] 192.0.0.0/24 reserved for IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry
[RFC5736]. Complete registration details for 192.0.0.0/24 are found in
[IANA registry iana-ipv4-special-registry].

Was RFC5736 obsoleted? I think not, so I would treat it as bogon.

Its a nice tiny subnet for special purposes. I personaly use it
as my Internal VM Net on my desktop for example.


-- Original message --

From: John Kristoff 
To: NANOG 
Subject: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:18:47 -0500

As one to never let a good academic question go unasked... what is it
about 192.0.0.0/24 that is or isn't a bogon. This doesn't seem so
straightforward an answer to me, at least in theory.  Although in
practice it may already be decided whether one likes the answer or not.

192.0.0.0/24 was originally assigned to IANA for "protocol assignments"
in IETF RFC 5736, and later added to the list of reserved / special use
addresses in IETF RFC 6890 (aka BCP 153).   There is a corresponding
IPv6 block (2001::/23), but it has a significantly different history.

Team Cymru's bogon list includes the v4 prefix.  NLNOG's bogon
filtering guide does not.  When I asked Job about NLNOG's position he
said:

  "I was unsure what this prefix˙˙s future plans would be and erred on
  the side of caution and didn˙˙t include this prefix in the NLNOG bogon
  list recommendations."

The /24 as specified is not for "global" use, but some of the more
specific assignments are or can be.  See:
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml>.

From my cursory examination I can't find cases where the v4 prefix or
more specifics have been publicly announced to any significant degree.
This however is not the case for the IPv6 prefix (e.g., the AS112
project, Teredo).

Maybe you'd say the /24 should be filtered, but not the more specifics
that are deemed available for global use.  That might be reasonable,
except many reasonable people will filter small prefixes.

IANA's language may have put any "do not filter" camp in a relatively
weak position:

  "Address prefixes listed in the Special-Purpose Address Registry are
  not guaranteed routability in any particular local or global context."

I can't remember hearing anyone complaining about bogon-related
reachability problems with the aggregate IANA prefixes generally.  Is
there a strong case to make that ops should not bogon filter any
addresses in these prefixes?  At least with IPv4?  What about for IPv6?

John

On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24

2024-05-13 Thread John Kristoff 
As one to never let a good academic question go unasked... what is it
about 192.0.0.0/24 that is or isn't a bogon. This doesn't seem so
straightforward an answer to me, at least in theory.  Although in
practice it may already be decided whether one likes the answer or not.

192.0.0.0/24 was originally assigned to IANA for "protocol assignments"
in IETF RFC 5736, and later added to the list of reserved / special use
addresses in IETF RFC 6890 (aka BCP 153).   There is a corresponding
IPv6 block (2001::/23), but it has a significantly different history.

Team Cymru's bogon list includes the v4 prefix.  NLNOG's bogon
filtering guide does not.  When I asked Job about NLNOG's position he
said:

  "I was unsure what this prefix’s future plans would be and erred on
  the side of caution and didn’t include this prefix in the NLNOG bogon
  list recommendations."

The /24 as specified is not for "global" use, but some of the more
specific assignments are or can be.  See:
.

From my cursory examination I can't find cases where the v4 prefix or
more specifics have been publicly announced to any significant degree.
This however is not the case for the IPv6 prefix (e.g., the AS112
project, Teredo).

Maybe you'd say the /24 should be filtered, but not the more specifics
that are deemed available for global use.  That might be reasonable,
except many reasonable people will filter small prefixes.

IANA's language may have put any "do not filter" camp in a relatively
weak position:

  "Address prefixes listed in the Special-Purpose Address Registry are
  not guaranteed routability in any particular local or global context."

I can't remember hearing anyone complaining about bogon-related
reachability problems with the aggregate IANA prefixes generally.  Is
there a strong case to make that ops should not bogon filter any
addresses in these prefixes?  At least with IPv4?  What about for IPv6?

John