After consideration of all the factors highlighted on the mailing list and in person at both the OPM and AMM, the authors do not wish to proceed with this proposal.
Regards, Dean On Tuesday, March 4, 2014, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]> wrote: > Geoff and Dean, > > As next step, can you share your thought as the authors whether continue > the discussion or withdraw this proposal? > > Rgs, > Masato > > > > 2014-03-03 5:27 GMT-08:00 Masato Yamanishi > <[email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > >: > > 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 > > > > > -- > Masato Yamanishi > SVP, Network Engineering > Japan Telecom America > Tel: +1-213-623-0797 ext.106 > -- -- Dean Pemberton Technical Policy Advisor InternetNZ +64 21 920 363 (mob) [email protected] To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
