I support this proposal,this is great approach to change useful from harmful 
address.
I have some questions.

1.Current status
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-109/prop-109-v001.txt

Some references are quite old ,2010. Do you have latest data?
AS15169 has been originating 1.0.0.0/24,1.1.1.0/24,1.2.3.0/24 since around 
2012(?).
So I think APNIC could show how to use this address for Research purpose in 
more detail.

2.Roadmap
This is simple question.
I felt this proposal should be taken on IETF and IANA should assign this 
address range as specific purpose.
How to process this proposal in future?

Regards,
-Shishio


(2014/01/26 10:19), Andy Linton wrote:
> Dear SIG members
> 
> The proposal "prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 <http://1.0.0.0/24> and 
> 1.1.1.0/24 <http://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 <http://1.0.0.0/24> and 1.1.1.0/24 
> <http://1.1.1.0/24> to APNIC Labs as
>                Research Prefixes
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Proposer:        Geoff Huston, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> 
> 
> 1. Problem statement
> --------------------
> 
>     Network 1 (1.0.0.0/8 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://1.0.0.0/24> and 1.1.1.0/24 
> <http://1.1.1.0/24>.
> 
> 
> 2. Objective of policy change
> -----------------------------
> 
>     The objective of this proposal is to allocate 1.0.0.0/24 
> <http://1.0.0.0/24> and
> 1.1.1.0/24 <http://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 <http://1.0.0.0/24> and 1.1.1.0/24 <http://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 <http://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://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

Reply via email to