Dear Colleagues, And, here is prop-115. No comment has not been made for this proposal.
If reached consensus, it may needs significant change for whois database. I just reviewed implementation impact assessment by the Secretariat, and it says it might take more than 6 months. I think same thing will happen for whois database of each NIRs. And if your company have a system linked with APNIC/NIR whois database, it will be impacted also. As Chair, I'm always very neutral for each proposal, including prop-115. However, I would like to emphasis prop-115 should be discussed more widely as it has wide impact. It is very appreciated if you will express your views. Regards, Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting) 2015-02-04 14:52 GMT-06:00 Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]>: > Dear SIG members > > The Problem statement "Registration of detailed assignment information > in whois DB" has been assigned a Policy Proposal number following the > submission of a new version sent to the Policy SIG for consideration. > > The proposal, "prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment > information in whois DB" now includes an objective and proposed solution. > > Information about this and earlier versions is available from: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115 > > You are encouraged 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? > > > > Regards, > > Masato > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in > whois DB > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Proposer: Ruri Hiromi > [email protected] > > Tomohiro Fujisaki > [email protected] > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > > Recently, there are some cases need to get IP address assignment > information in more detail to specify user IP address. > > With out this information, operators cannot filter out specific > address range, and it might lead to 'over-filter' (i.e. filtering > whole ISP's address range). > > For example: > > 1) 'Port' range information in IPv4 > > ISPs are using 'CGN' or other kinds of IPv4 address sharing > technology with assignment of IP address and specified port > range to their users. > > In this case, port information is necessary to specify one user. > > ex) 192.0.2.24/32 1-256 is for HomeA > 192.0.2.24/32 257-511 is for HomeB > > or 192.0.2.0/24 1-65536 is shared address of ISP-X > minimum size is /32 > > 2) address assignment size information in IPv6 > > The IPv6 address assignment size may be different from ISP to > ISP, and address ranges in one ISP. Address assignment prefix > size will be necessary. > > ex) 2001:db8:1::0/56 is for HomeA > 2001:db8:1:1::0/48 is for HomeB > > or 2001:db8:1::/36's minimum size is /56 > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > > Lots of operators look a record when harmful behavior coming to > their network to identify its IP address confirming it can be > filtered or not. > > The goal is providing more specific information to support these > actions. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > > No same regulation/discussion can be seen in other regions. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > > Provide accurate filtering information generated from whois DB. > > For IPv4, propose to add 'port range' information to IP address > entry. > > For IPv6, propose to provide 'assignment prefix size' information > for specific IPv6 address. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > > Advantages: > > - operators can set filtering by IP address based on correct assignment > information base. > > - users who share same address space can be avoid to be including bulk > filtering. > > Disadvantages: > > - registration rule will move to more strict manner. > > - strict watch and control in registration of database records. > > - additional record or option will be considered. > > - privilege for withdrawing detailed information will be set for these > records. > > > 6. Impact on APNIC > ------------------ > > This might be beyond the scope of using whois DB. > > > 7. Other Consideration > ---------------------- > > For the security reason, this detailed records may be able to see > only by operators.(some kind of user control/privilege setting is > needed) > > For hosting services, /32 in IPv4 and /128 in IPv6 registration > should be discussed based on its operability and possibility. But a > harmful activities to filter by IP addresses are coming from hosting > services as well. Here it seemed to be some demands. > > > References > ---------- > > TBD > >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
