I simply don’t see this as at all likely to have the desired effect. When ISPs put an abuse block in, it’s a very high-overhead thing to do. Generally, in order to maximize the probability that the problem will get resolved at the source, while minimizing the odds of having to play whack-a-mole, it’s done on broad strokes regardless of the detail of information available.
There’s already a remarks section where you can put whatever you want. If you’re hoping that will reduce how people filter your network, go for it. I doubt it will have much effect. Other than using the remarks field, an additional field would in fact, be necessary. I oppose the proposal as written. Owen > On Mar 2, 2015, at 18:23 , Ruri Hiromi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Owen and list, > > Thanks for your interest to our proposal. > > I don't cost much for implementing in execution of the proposal such > making additional filed or other. > > But some operators actually see the whois DB and IRR DB to confirm the > attack vector with its IP address. When set filter by IP address it is > important to check the assignment range if they do not want to filter > whole range of ISP's allocated address. > > I also do not want to focus on CGNs, it is a sample case for the > detailed information. > > In addition, if there is another solution to work with issue, I will > reconsider the proposal. I think using IRR is the one solution. > > But in order to start discussing about what is good solution where we > can get detailed information about assignment of address, I thought > whois DB is possible one to choose. > > Regards, > > On 2015/02/25 2:11, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I don’t believe the proposal offers enough benefit to be worth what >> implementation would likely >> cost. >> >> First, I am sincerely hoping that CGN is an extremely temporary >> situation. I’m not sure >> it should be worth the effort to recode the registry to support it. >> >> Second, I’m wondering if there’s any real advantage to having this level >> of detail on >> residential subscribers that don’t even get full addresses, since we >> don’t really tend >> to have it for single-address subscribers now. >> >> IMHO, best to just let each ISP keep this information for themselves as >> the relevant contact >> for abuse and such is usually the ISP and not the residential user anyway. >> >> Owen >> >>> On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:53 , Masato Yamanishi <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >>> >>> 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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[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 >>> <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] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >>> Tomohiro Fujisaki >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[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 <http://192.0.2.24/32 <http://192.0.2.24/32>> >>> 1-256 is for HomeA >>> 192.0.2.24/32 <http://192.0.2.24/32 <http://192.0.2.24/32>> >>> 257-511 is for HomeB >>> >>> or 192.0.2.0/24 <http://192.0.2.0/24 <http://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] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy> >> >> >> >> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >> * >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy> >> > > > -- > =================================== > 株式会社インテック > 先端技術研究所 研究開発部 > 廣海（ひろみ）緑里
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
