On 3 Feb 2014, at 10:03 pm, Shishio Tsuchiya <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Google is assisting me with data collection - the analysis of the collected traffic is something that I do from time to time, rather than as a continuous publication. The last article I wrote on this topic was http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-07/dark6.html. It would be good to get some time this year to followup and profile the changes that have occurred in the intervening period. > > 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? I'm not sure I understand your question. This is not a case of reserving the addresses, but a case of assigning them to support dark traffic observation, and the IETF is not really in the loop here. Please read http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-number-registries/?include_text=1 for more details on the roles of the IETFG in terms of number reservation. thanks, Geoff > > 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 * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
