Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

[Md. Abdul Awal]

Hi Aftab-bhai,

While I totally support the proposal, I think this will only isolate
BOGON/Martian routes in AP region and so all the other regions must do
the same to make the idea fully functional. By that, I indicate of a
global policy, may be at the NRO level. But anyway, at least it can be
started from this region.

BR//Awal


On 15/8/19 10:58 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
> Hi Owen,
> Thanks for your response, sorry for replying late though. 
>
> IMO, IETF has done its part already.
>
> RFC6483 defines the term “Disavowal of Routing Origination”.
>
> “A ROA is a positive attestation that a prefix holder has authorized
> an AS to originate a route for this prefix into the inter-domain
> routing system.  It is possible for a prefix holder to construct an
> authorization where no valid AS has been granted any such authority to
> originate a route for an address prefix.  This is achieved by using a
> ROA where the ROA’s subject AS is one that must not be used in any
> routing context.  Specifically, AS0 is reserved by the IANA such that
> it may be used to identify non-routed networks
>
> A ROA with a subject of AS0 (AS0 ROA) is an attestation by the holder
> of a prefix that the prefix described in the ROA, and any more
> specific prefix, should not be used in a routing context. The route
> validation procedure will provide a “valid” outcome if any ROA matches
> the address prefix and origin AS even if other valid ROAs would
> provide an “invalid” validation outcome if used in isolation. 
> Consequently, an AS0 ROA has a lower relative preference than any
> other ROA that has a routable AS, as its subject.  This allows a
> prefix holder to use an AS0 ROA to declare a default condition that
> any route that is equal to or more specific than the prefix to be
> considered “invalid”, while also allowing other concurrently issued
> ROAs to describe valid origination authorizations for more specific
> prefixes.”
>
> RFC6491 says - "IANA SHOULD issue an AS 0 ROA for all reserved IPv4
> and IPv6 resources not intended to be routed." also "IANA SHOULD issue
> an AS 0 ROA for all Unallocated Resources."
>
> Once allocated to RIRs then IANA can't issue any ROA (they are not
> doing it to any resource anyway) but there is unallocated address
> space with RIRs, they can issue AS0 ROAs.
>
> I hope this clarifies your point of IETF's involvement first.
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 6:40 AM Owen DeLong  > wrote:
>
> IMHO, while I’m perfectly fine with APNIC administering this and
> maintaining the ROAs, etc., I believe that the decision to
> allocate AS0 to this purpose and documentation of this intent
> should be done through the IETF and be documented in an STD or RFC.
>
> I support the idea, but I believe the proper place to start is the
> IETF.
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Aug 9, 2019, at 3:01 AM, Sumon Ahmed Sabir > > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear SIG members,
>>
>> The proposal "prop-132-v001: AS0 for Bogons" has been sent to
>> the Policy SIG for review.
>>
>> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in
>> Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019.
>>
>> 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 proposal is available at:
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-132
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> prop-132-v001: AS0 for Bogons
>>
>> --
>>
>> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
>>            aftab.siddi...@gmail.com 
>>
>>
>> 1. Problem statement
>> 
>> Bogons are defined in RFC3871, A "Bogon" (plural: "bogons") is a
>> packet
>> with an IP source address in an address block not yet allocated
>> by IANA
>> or the Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, RIPE NCC, APNIC,
>> AFRINIC and
>> LACNIC) as well as all addresses reserved for private or special
>> use by
>> RFCs.  See [RFC3330] and [RFC1918].
>>
>> As of now, there are 287 IPv4 bogons and 73 IPv6 bogons in the 

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Hi Owen,
Thanks for your response, sorry for replying late though.

IMO, IETF has done its part already.

RFC6483 defines the term “Disavowal of Routing Origination”.

“A ROA is a positive attestation that a prefix holder has authorized an AS
to originate a route for this prefix into the inter-domain routing system.
It is possible for a prefix holder to construct an authorization where no
valid AS has been granted any such authority to originate a route for an
address prefix.  This is achieved by using a ROA where the ROA’s subject AS
is one that must not be used in any routing context.  Specifically, AS0 is
reserved by the IANA such that it may be used to identify non-routed
networks

A ROA with a subject of AS0 (AS0 ROA) is an attestation by the holder of a
prefix that the prefix described in the ROA, and any more specific prefix,
should not be used in a routing context. The route validation procedure
will provide a “valid” outcome if any ROA matches the address prefix and
origin AS even if other valid ROAs would provide an “invalid” validation
outcome if used in isolation.  Consequently, an AS0 ROA has a lower
relative preference than any other ROA that has a routable AS, as its
subject.  This allows a prefix holder to use an AS0 ROA to declare a
default condition that any route that is equal to or more specific than the
prefix to be considered “invalid”, while also allowing other concurrently
issued ROAs to describe valid origination authorizations for more specific
prefixes.”

RFC6491 says - "IANA SHOULD issue an AS 0 ROA for all reserved IPv4 and
IPv6 resources not intended to be routed." also "IANA SHOULD issue an AS 0
ROA for all Unallocated Resources."

Once allocated to RIRs then IANA can't issue any ROA (they are not doing it
to any resource anyway) but there is unallocated address space with RIRs,
they can issue AS0 ROAs.

I hope this clarifies your point of IETF's involvement first.

Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 6:40 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> IMHO, while I’m perfectly fine with APNIC administering this and
> maintaining the ROAs, etc., I believe that the decision to allocate AS0 to
> this purpose and documentation of this intent should be done through the
> IETF and be documented in an STD or RFC.
>
> I support the idea, but I believe the proper place to start is the IETF.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2019, at 3:01 AM, Sumon Ahmed Sabir  wrote:
>
>
> Dear SIG members,
>
> The proposal "prop-132-v001: AS0 for Bogons" has been sent to
> the Policy SIG for review.
>
> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in
> Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019.
>
> 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 proposal is available at:
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-132
>
> Regards
>
> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>
>
> --
>
> prop-132-v001: AS0 for Bogons
>
> --
>
> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
>aftab.siddi...@gmail.com
>
>
> 1. Problem statement
> 
> Bogons are defined in RFC3871, A "Bogon" (plural: "bogons") is a packet
> with an IP source address in an address block not yet allocated by IANA
> or the Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, RIPE NCC, APNIC, AFRINIC and
> LACNIC) as well as all addresses reserved for private or special use by
> RFCs.  See [RFC3330] and [RFC1918].
>
> As of now, there are 287 IPv4 bogons and 73 IPv6 bogons in the global
> routing table. In the past, several attempts have been made to filter
> out such bogons through various methods such as static filters and updating
> them occasionally but it is hard to keep an up to date filters,
> TeamCymru and
> CAIDA provides full bogon list in text format to update such filters.
> TeamCymru
> also provides bogon BGP feed where they send all the bogons via a BGP
> session
> which then can be discarded automatically. Beside all these attempts the
> issue
> of Bogon Advertisement hasn't be resolved so far.
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> -
> The purpose of creating AS0 (zero) ROAs for unallocated address space by
> APNIC
> is to resolve the issue of Bogon announcement. When APNIC issues an AS0
> ROA for
> unallocated address space in its bucket then