Geoff (2014/02/04 4:00), Geoff Huston wrote: > > 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.
Ok,thanks. I just wanted to know the traffic trend of 1.0.0.0/24,1.1.1.0/24,1.2.3.0/24 was changed from 2010 or not. > > >> >> 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. Oh I see. This address rage already assigned to APNIC. So APNIC can decide to allocate this address to APNIC organization. I understood. Thanks for your explanation. Regards, -Shishio > > 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
