[sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

2019-08-21 Thread Sumon Ahmed Sabir
Dear SIG members

A new version of the proposal "prop-132: AS0 for Bogons"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-132

You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:

  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
  - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
  - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?

Please find the text of the proposal below.

Kind Regards,

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


--

prop-132-v002: 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 under APNIC’s administration then it will be
marked as
“Invalid” if someone tries to advertise the same address space.


Currently, in the absence of any ROA, these bogons are marked as
“NotFound”. Since
many operators have implemented ROV and either planning or already
discarding “Invalid”
then all the AS0 ROAs which APNIC will create for unallocated address
space will be
discarded as well.

3. Situation in other regions
-
No such policy in any region at the moment.


4. Proposed policy solution
---
APNIC will create AS0(zero) ROAs for all the unallocated address space
(IPv4 and IPv6)
for which APNIC is the current administrator. Any resource holder (APNIC
member) can
create AS0 (zero) ROAs for the resources they have under their
account/administration.


A ROA is a positive attestation that a prefix holder has authorised an
AS to originate a
route for this prefix whereas, a ROA for the same prefixes with AS0
(zero) origin shows
negative intent from the resource holder that they don't want to
advertise the prefix(es)
at this point but they are the rightful custodian.


Only APNIC has the authority to create ROAs for address space not yet
allocated to the members
and only APNIC can issue AS0 (zero) ROAs. Once they ROA is issued and
APNIC wants to allocate
the address space to its member, simply they can revoke the ROA and
delegate the address space
to members. (this proposal doesn't formulate operational process).

5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-
Advantages:
Those implementing ROV globally and discarding the invalids will be able
to discard bogons from
APNIC region automatically.

Disadvantages:
No apparent disadvantage

6. Impact on resource holders
-
No impact to APNIC or respective NIR resource holders not implementing
ROV. Those implementing ROV
and discarding the invalids will not see any bogons in their routing table.


7. References
---
RFC6483 - https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6483.txt
RFC6491 - https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6491.txt
RFC7607 - https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7607.txt
___
*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

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

2019-08-21 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
Ok I get your point now. During my ops days I used to manage "Martians"
(reserved blocks/special use blocks) and "Bogons" (unallocated address
blocks) prefix filters :)

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui


On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:09 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> Fair enough. I tend to think of Bogons as “Those addresses which shouldn’t
> be advertised _EVER_” (e.g. 10.0.0.0/8) while I tend to think of
> Unallocated as being more transient in nature.
>
> I realize that makes 224.0.0.0/4 classification as a bogon a bit of a
> grey area, while including all unallocated space makes a cleaner definition.
>
> I suppose part of the reason for that was I always tended to maintain
> bogons and unallocated as separate lists in ACLs and I usually kept the
> unallocated one in the dynamic configuration (in Juniper land) since it
> tended to need frequent update.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2019, at 16:02 , Aftab Siddiqui 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:10 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
>> I don’t tend to regard unallocated as “bogons”,
>>
>
> Why is that?
> RFC3871  - Bogon: 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,
> APNIC...) as well as all addresses reserved for private or special use by
> RFCs.
>
>
>> but sure, if this proposal is strictly about unallocated space in the
>> APNIC free pool(s), then I have no problem with that.
>>
>
> Yes, the policy is strictly talking about "unallocated address space" in
> APNIC free pool.
>
>
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> On Aug 15, 2019, at 17:15 , Aftab Siddiqui 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Owen,
>> Just to give you an example, all unallocated address space from 103/8 are
>> under APNIC's management unless they were transferred to other RIRs and
>> then reclaimed by that RIR due to whatever reason. This policy covers all
>> unallocated address space under APNIC's management and asking APNIC to
>> create AS0 ROAs for all those unallocated addresses.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:03 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>
>>> Since we are talking about bigots, other than Unallocated space in RIR
>>> inventory, I’m not sure how you would consider a bogota to be within any
>>> particular RIRs jurisdiction. As such, I was under the impression from the
>>> policy proposal that the intent was for APNIC to issue AS0 ROAs for global
>>> bogons.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 15, 2019, at 15:12, Andrew Dul  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/15/2019 12:19 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Owen,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>>
 Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by IANA rather
 than by an RIR from what you quoted.

>>>
>>> Yes, for resources not allocated by IANA or marked as Reserved But IANA
>>> has nothing to do with resources allocated to RIRs already.
>>>
>>>
 Any reason APNIC feels the need to usurp that process?

>>>
>>> Accordingly to IANA 103/8 was allocated to APNIC and now they don't have
>>> unallocated IPv4 address space.
>>> 103/8 APNIC 2011-02 whois.apnic.net https://rdap.apnic.net/ ALLOCATED
>>> The policy is addressing the unallocated address space within APNIC
>>>
>>>
>>> If this policy is only speaking to /8 IPv4 blocks & IPv6 blocks which
>>> are administered by APNIC, it should be noted that because of inter-RIR
>>> transfers of IPv4 addresses between regions RIRs other than APNIC are now
>>> administering sub-portions of the larger IANA allocated blocks.  There are
>>> portions of a /8 for example which are now delegated to other RIRs for
>>> registrations in those regions.   Should it be assumed that those
>>> sub-portions administered by RIRs now are considered allocated (and not
>>> bogons) for purposes of this policy?
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
 Owen


 On Aug 14, 2019, at 21:58 , 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 

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

2019-08-21 Thread Owen DeLong
Fair enough. I tend to think of Bogons as “Those addresses which shouldn’t be 
advertised _EVER_” (e.g. 10.0.0.0/8) while I tend to think of Unallocated as 
being more transient in nature.

I realize that makes 224.0.0.0/4 classification as a bogon a bit of a grey 
area, while including all unallocated space makes a cleaner definition.

I suppose part of the reason for that was I always tended to maintain bogons 
and unallocated as separate lists in ACLs and I usually kept the unallocated 
one in the dynamic configuration (in Juniper land) since it tended to need 
frequent update.

Owen


> On Aug 21, 2019, at 16:02 , Aftab Siddiqui  wrote:
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:10 AM Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> I don’t tend to regard unallocated as “bogons”,
> 
> Why is that? 
> RFC3871  - Bogon: 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, APNIC...) 
> as well as all addresses reserved for private or special use by RFCs.
>  
> but sure, if this proposal is strictly about unallocated space in the APNIC 
> free pool(s), then I have no problem with that.
> 
> Yes, the policy is strictly talking about "unallocated address space" in 
> APNIC free pool.
>  
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
>> On Aug 15, 2019, at 17:15 , Aftab Siddiqui > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Owen,
>> Just to give you an example, all unallocated address space from 103/8 are 
>> under APNIC's management unless they were transferred to other RIRs and then 
>> reclaimed by that RIR due to whatever reason. This policy covers all 
>> unallocated address space under APNIC's management and asking APNIC to 
>> create AS0 ROAs for all those unallocated addresses. 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:03 AM Owen DeLong > > wrote:
>> Since we are talking about bigots, other than Unallocated space in RIR 
>> inventory, I’m not sure how you would consider a bogota to be within any 
>> particular RIRs jurisdiction. As such, I was under the impression from the 
>> policy proposal that the intent was for APNIC to issue AS0 ROAs for global 
>> bogons. 
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 15, 2019, at 15:12, Andrew Dul > > wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 8/15/2019 12:19 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
 Hi Owen,
 
 On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong >>> > wrote:
 Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by IANA rather than 
 by an RIR from what you quoted.
 
 Yes, for resources not allocated by IANA or marked as Reserved But IANA 
 has nothing to do with resources allocated to RIRs already.
  
 Any reason APNIC feels the need to usurp that process?
 
 Accordingly to IANA 103/8 was allocated to APNIC and now they don't have 
 unallocated IPv4 address space. 
 103/8  APNIC   2011-02 whois.apnic.net    
 https://rdap.apnic.net/    ALLOCATED
 The policy is addressing the unallocated address space within APNIC
  
>>> If this policy is only speaking to /8 IPv4 blocks & IPv6 blocks which are 
>>> administered by APNIC, it should be noted that because of inter-RIR 
>>> transfers of IPv4 addresses between regions RIRs other than APNIC are now 
>>> administering sub-portions of the larger IANA allocated blocks.  There are 
>>> portions of a /8 for example which are now delegated to other RIRs for 
>>> registrations in those regions.   Should it be assumed that those 
>>> sub-portions administered by RIRs now are considered allocated (and not 
>>> bogons) for purposes of this policy?
>>> 
>>> Andrew
>>> 
 
 Owen
 
 
> On Aug 14, 2019, at 21:58 , 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 

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

2019-08-21 Thread Aftab Siddiqui
Hi Owen,

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:10 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> I don’t tend to regard unallocated as “bogons”,
>

Why is that?
RFC3871  - Bogon: 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,
APNIC...) as well as all addresses reserved for private or special use by
RFCs.


> but sure, if this proposal is strictly about unallocated space in the
> APNIC free pool(s), then I have no problem with that.
>

Yes, the policy is strictly talking about "unallocated address space" in
APNIC free pool.


>
> Owen
>
>
> On Aug 15, 2019, at 17:15 , Aftab Siddiqui 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Owen,
> Just to give you an example, all unallocated address space from 103/8 are
> under APNIC's management unless they were transferred to other RIRs and
> then reclaimed by that RIR due to whatever reason. This policy covers all
> unallocated address space under APNIC's management and asking APNIC to
> create AS0 ROAs for all those unallocated addresses.
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:03 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
>> Since we are talking about bigots, other than Unallocated space in RIR
>> inventory, I’m not sure how you would consider a bogota to be within any
>> particular RIRs jurisdiction. As such, I was under the impression from the
>> policy proposal that the intent was for APNIC to issue AS0 ROAs for global
>> bogons.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> On Aug 15, 2019, at 15:12, Andrew Dul  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/15/2019 12:19 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>>
>> Hi Owen,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by IANA rather
>>> than by an RIR from what you quoted.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, for resources not allocated by IANA or marked as Reserved But IANA
>> has nothing to do with resources allocated to RIRs already.
>>
>>
>>> Any reason APNIC feels the need to usurp that process?
>>>
>>
>> Accordingly to IANA 103/8 was allocated to APNIC and now they don't have
>> unallocated IPv4 address space.
>> 103/8 APNIC 2011-02 whois.apnic.net https://rdap.apnic.net/ ALLOCATED
>> The policy is addressing the unallocated address space within APNIC
>>
>>
>> If this policy is only speaking to /8 IPv4 blocks & IPv6 blocks which are
>> administered by APNIC, it should be noted that because of inter-RIR
>> transfers of IPv4 addresses between regions RIRs other than APNIC are now
>> administering sub-portions of the larger IANA allocated blocks.  There are
>> portions of a /8 for example which are now delegated to other RIRs for
>> registrations in those regions.   Should it be assumed that those
>> sub-portions administered by RIRs now are considered allocated (and not
>> bogons) for purposes of this policy?
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2019, at 21:58 , 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 

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

2019-08-21 Thread Owen DeLong
I don’t tend to regard unallocated as “bogons”, but sure, if this proposal is 
strictly about unallocated space
in the APNIC free pool(s), then I have no problem with that.

Owen


> On Aug 15, 2019, at 17:15 , Aftab Siddiqui  wrote:
> 
> Hi Owen,
> Just to give you an example, all unallocated address space from 103/8 are 
> under APNIC's management unless they were transferred to other RIRs and then 
> reclaimed by that RIR due to whatever reason. This policy covers all 
> unallocated address space under APNIC's management and asking APNIC to create 
> AS0 ROAs for all those unallocated addresses. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:03 AM Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> Since we are talking about bigots, other than Unallocated space in RIR 
> inventory, I’m not sure how you would consider a bogota to be within any 
> particular RIRs jurisdiction. As such, I was under the impression from the 
> policy proposal that the intent was for APNIC to issue AS0 ROAs for global 
> bogons. 
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> On Aug 15, 2019, at 15:12, Andrew Dul  > wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 8/15/2019 12:19 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>>> Hi Owen,
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong >> > wrote:
>>> Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by IANA rather than 
>>> by an RIR from what you quoted.
>>> 
>>> Yes, for resources not allocated by IANA or marked as Reserved But IANA has 
>>> nothing to do with resources allocated to RIRs already.
>>>  
>>> Any reason APNIC feels the need to usurp that process?
>>> 
>>> Accordingly to IANA 103/8 was allocated to APNIC and now they don't have 
>>> unallocated IPv4 address space. 
>>> 103/8   APNIC   2011-02 whois.apnic.net    
>>> https://rdap.apnic.net/    ALLOCATED
>>> The policy is addressing the unallocated address space within APNIC
>>>  
>> If this policy is only speaking to /8 IPv4 blocks & IPv6 blocks which are 
>> administered by APNIC, it should be noted that because of inter-RIR 
>> transfers of IPv4 addresses between regions RIRs other than APNIC are now 
>> administering sub-portions of the larger IANA allocated blocks.  There are 
>> portions of a /8 for example which are now delegated to other RIRs for 
>> registrations in those regions.   Should it be assumed that those 
>> sub-portions administered by RIRs now are considered allocated (and not 
>> bogons) for purposes of this policy?
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> 
 On Aug 14, 2019, at 21:58 , 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: