Masato, Can it be explained how this occurred. Did something change between the two?
I thought it was practice that the AMM essentially confirmed the proceedings on the Policy SIG - to avoid these kinds of events, especially at APRICOT meetings where support/non-support may not be able to make both events. I find it extraordinarily a waste of time if all the effort of the Policy SIG is undone on an individual policy basis. The AMM should be confirming the whole Policy SIG event, not individual policies.. or you might as well not call for consensus during Policy SIG and just save time and do it once at the AMM, or the other way around. I've seen this happen a number of times at combined Apricot events with a lot of other parties present. One might say that it would be wiser to propose policies only at the mid-year events. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd [email protected] ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Masato Yamanishi < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear colleagues > > Version 2 of prop-110: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS > Infrastructure, reached consensus at the APNIC 37 Policy SIG, but did > not reach consensus at the APNIC 37 Member Meeting. > > Therefore, this proposal is being returned to the authors and the Policy > SIG mailing list for further consideration. > > > Proposal details > ---------------- > > The objective of this proposal is to permit the use 1.2.3.0/24 as > anycast addresses to be used in context of scoped routing to support the > deployment of DNS resolvers. > > Proposal details including the full text of the proposal, history, and > links to mailing list discussions are available at: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-110 > > Regards > > Masato > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > prop-110v002: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS > Infrastructure > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Proposers: Dean Pemberton, [email protected] > 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 unwanted traffic, primarily > due to its unauthorised use as private address space [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 > unsolicited incoming traffic as a continuous sustained traffic level, > with peak bursts of over 800Mbps. > > The analysis highlighted individual addresses such as 1.2.3.4 with > its covering /24 (identified as 1.2.3.0/24) remain in APNIC > quarantine and it is believed they will not be suitable for normal > address distribution. > > The proposal proposes the use of 1.2.3.0/24 in a context of locally > scoped infrastructure support for DNS resolvers. > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > > As the addresses attract extremely high levels of unsolicited > incoming traffic, the block has 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. > > The objective of this proposal is to permit the use 1.2.3.0/24 as a > anycast addresses to be used in context of scoped routing to support > the deployment of DNS resolvers. It is noted that as long as > providers who use this address use basic route scope limitations, the > side effect of large volumes of unsolicited incoming traffic would > be, to some extent mitigated down to manageable levels. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > > Improper use of this address space is a globally common issue. > However the block is delegated only APNIC and so therefor, no other > RIR has equivalent policy to deal with the situation. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > > This proposal recommends that the APNIC community agree to assign > 1.2.3.0/24 to the APNIC Secretariat for use in the context of locally > scoped infrastructure support for DNS resolvers. > > At some future point there is nothing restricting an RFC being > written to include this prefix into the special-purpose IPv4 > registry. However, at this time it is considered sufficient for the > APNIC community to designate this prefix to be managed as a common > anycast address for locally scoped infrastructure support for DNS > resolvers. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > > Advantages > > - It will make use of this otherwise unusable address space. > - DNS operators will have an easy-to-remember address they can use to > communicate with their users (e.g. configure "1.2.3.4" as your DNS > resolver") > > > Disadvantages > > - The address attracts a large volume of unsolicited incoming > traffic, and leakage of an anycast advertisement outside of a > limited local scope may impact on the integrity of the DNS service > located at the point associated with the scope leakage. Some > operators with high capacity infrastructure may see this as a > negligible issue. > > 6. Impact on APNIC > ------------------ > > Although this space will no longer be available for use by a single > APNIC/NIR account holder, the proposal would result in benefit for > all APNIC community members, as well as the communities in other > regions. > > > > 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
