I support this proposal.
> On 26/01/2014, at 14:19, Andy Linton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear SIG members > > The proposal "prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC > Labs as Research Prefixes" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It > will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 37 in Petaling Jaya, > Malaysia, on Thursday, 27 February 2014. > > 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 policy proposals is available from: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/109 > > Andy, Masato > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs as > Research Prefixes > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Proposer: Geoff Huston, [email protected] > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > > Network 1 (1.0.0.0/8) was allocated to APNIC by the IANA on 19 > January 2010. In line with standard practice APNIC's Resource Quality > Assurance activities determined that 95% of the address space would > be suitable for delegation as it was found to be relatively free of > unwanted traffic [1]. > > Testing, conducted by APNIC R&D found that certain blocks within > Network 1 attract significant amounts of unsolicited incoming > traffic. [2] > > Analysis revealed that, prior to any delegations being made from the > block, 1.0.0.0/8 attracted an average of 140Mbps - 160Mbps of > incoming traffic as a continuous sustained traffic level, with peak > bursts of over 800Mbps. This analysis highlighted the individual > addresses 1.1.1.1 as the single address with the highest level of > unsolicited traffic, and it was recommended that the covering /24 > prefix, and also 1.1.1.0/24 be withheld from allocation pending a > decision as to the longer term disposition of these address prefixes. > > As these addresses attract extremely high levels of unsolicited > incoming traffic, the blocks have been withheld from allocation and > periodically checked to determine if the incoming traffic profile has > altered. None has been observed to date. After four years, it now > seems unlikely there will ever be any change in the incoming traffic > profile. > > This proposal is intended to define a long term approach to the > management of 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > > The objective of this proposal is to allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and > 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs, to be used as research prefixes. > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > > Other RIRs (notably the RIPE NCC) have used their policy process to > review self-allocations of number resources to the RIR as a means of > ensuring transparency of the address allocation process. This > proposal is consistent with such a practice. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > > This proposal recommends that the APNIC community agree to allocate > 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs as research prefixes. The > intent is to use these prefixes as passive traffic collectors in > order to generate a long term profile of unsolicited traffic in the > IPv4 internet that is directed to well known addresses to study > various aspects of traffic profiles and route scope leakages. > > An experiment in gathering a profile of unsolicited traffic directed > at 1.1.1.0/24 was started by APNIC Labs in 2013, in collaboration > with Google. This experiment was set up as a temporary exercise to > understand the longer term trend of the traffic profile associated > with this address. Through this policy proposal we would like to > place this research experiment on a more certain longer term > foundation. > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > > Advantages > > - It will make use of this otherwise unusable address space. > > - The research analysis may assist network operators to understand > the effectiveness of route scoping approaches. > > Disadvantages > > - The proposer is unclear what the downsides to this action may be. > The consideration of this proposal by the community may allow > potential downsides to be identified. > > > 6. Impact on APNIC > ------------------ > > There are no impacts on APNIC. > > References > ---------- > > [1] Resource Quality Good for Most of IPv4 Network “1” > http://www.apnic.net/publications/press/releases/2010/network-1.pdf > > [2] Traffic in Network 1.0.0.0/8 > http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-03/net1.html > > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
