Hi , Actually i'm also thinking why this is important ? or why we are trying to mapping port with addressing specially in IPv4? I think their are so many reasons not support this proposal specially by considering technical feasibility and scalability .
Just one question for my personal understanding to author like; How to define the best route within ISP routing table if HomeA and Home B announce same prefix ? 192.0.2.24/32 1-256 is for HomeA 192.0.2.24/32 257-511 is for HomeB On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Yager <[email protected]> wrote: > I do not support this proposal, and consider that such data is largely > irrelevant, likely to be prone to inaccuracies and technically infeasible > to manage on an ongoing basis or practically implement the filtering > described in the proposal. > > If individual providers which to disclose such information in the remarks > field in their data then I see no issue with them continuing to do so. > > Andrew > > On 13 September 2015 at 01:15, Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dear colleagues >> >> Version 3 of prop-115: Registration of detailed assignment information >> in whois DB, did not reach consensus at the APNIC 40 Open >> Policy Meeting. >> >> The Policy SIG Chair requested the Secretariat conduct further research >> into the problem statement and returned the proposal to the authors for >> further consideration. >> >> Proposal details >> ---------------- >> >> This proposal seeks to require LIRs to register accurate filtering >> information, such as IPv4 port-range information and IPv6 assignment >> prefix size. >> >> Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and >> links to the APNIC 40 meeting archive, are available at: >> >> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115 >> >> Regards >> >> Masato and Sumon >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> prop-115-v003: 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. >> >> Without 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 and >> its service estimation. 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 and appropriate >> changes in policy document or guidance to whois DB will be needed. >> >> Some kind of modification cost in whois DB might be needed to set >> access privilege to the detailed information. >> >> Some kind of modification cost in whois DB might be needed in >> Help message/Warning/Alert when whois DB has non-privileged access. >> >> Some kind of promotion cost might be needed in announcing. >> >> Need cooperation and support from members(ISPs). >> >> 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. >> >> Some ISP use IRR DB to notice their filter policy towards BGP >> community with "remarks" filed in aut-num record. Need more >> discussion among APNIC members on using whois DB versus IRR DB. >> >> Start a pilot project for research its demands and effectiveness >> in APNIC region. APNIC is a worthy body to lead this pilot project. >> >> There are some opinions that it is not suitable to handle those >> issues at the Internet Registries (IRs), but we think it should be >> registered in the IRs database since that is part of assignment >> information. >> >> References >> ---------- >> >> TBD >> >> >> * 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 > > -- *Regards / Jahangir *
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
