Since we are talking about bigots, other than Unallocated space in RIR 
inventory, I’m not sure how you would consider a bogota to be within any 
particular RIRs jurisdiction. As such, I was under the impression from the 
policy proposal that the intent was for APNIC to issue AS0 ROAs for global 
bogons. 

Owen


> On Aug 15, 2019, at 15:12, Andrew Dul <andrew....@quark.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 8/15/2019 12:19 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
>> Hi Owen,
>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
>>> Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by IANA rather than 
>>> by an RIR from what you quoted.
>> 
>> Yes, for resources not allocated by IANA or marked as Reserved But IANA has 
>> nothing to do with resources allocated to RIRs already.
>>  
>>> Any reason APNIC feels the need to usurp that process?
>> 
>> Accordingly to IANA 103/8 was allocated to APNIC and now they don't have 
>> unallocated IPv4 address space. 
>> 103/8        APNIC   2011-02 whois.apnic.net https://rdap.apnic.net/ 
>> ALLOCATED
>> The policy is addressing the unallocated address space within APNIC
>>  
> If this policy is only speaking to /8 IPv4 blocks & IPv6 blocks which are 
> administered by APNIC, it should be noted that because of inter-RIR transfers 
> of IPv4 addresses between regions RIRs other than APNIC are now administering 
> sub-portions of the larger IANA allocated blocks.  There are portions of a /8 
> for example which are now delegated to other RIRs for registrations in those 
> regions.   Should it be assumed that those sub-portions administered by RIRs 
> now are considered allocated (and not bogons) for purposes of this policy?
> 
> Andrew
> 
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 14, 2019, at 21:58 , Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Owen,
>>>> Thanks for your response, sorry for replying late though. 
>>>> 
>>>> IMO, IETF has done its part already.
>>>> 
>>>> RFC6483 defines the term “Disavowal of Routing Origination”.
>>>> 
>>>> “A ROA is a positive attestation that a prefix holder has authorized an AS 
>>>> to originate a route for this prefix into the inter-domain routing system. 
>>>>  It is possible for a prefix holder to construct an authorization where no 
>>>> valid AS has been granted any such authority to originate a route for an 
>>>> address prefix.  This is achieved by using a ROA where the ROA’s subject 
>>>> AS is one that must not be used in any routing context.  Specifically, AS0 
>>>> is reserved by the IANA such that it may be used to identify non-routed 
>>>> networks
>>>> 
>>>> A ROA with a subject of AS0 (AS0 ROA) is an attestation by the holder of a 
>>>> prefix that the prefix described in the ROA, and any more specific prefix, 
>>>> should not be used in a routing context. The route validation procedure 
>>>> will provide a “valid” outcome if any ROA matches the address prefix and 
>>>> origin AS even if other valid ROAs would provide an “invalid” validation 
>>>> outcome if used in isolation.  Consequently, an AS0 ROA has a lower 
>>>> relative preference than any other ROA that has a routable AS, as its 
>>>> subject.  This allows a prefix holder to use an AS0 ROA to declare a 
>>>> default condition that any route that is equal to or more specific than 
>>>> the prefix to be considered “invalid”, while also allowing other 
>>>> concurrently issued ROAs to describe valid origination authorizations for 
>>>> more specific prefixes.”
>>>> 
>>>> RFC6491 says - "IANA SHOULD issue an AS 0 ROA for all reserved IPv4 and 
>>>> IPv6 resources not intended to be routed." also "IANA SHOULD issue an AS 0 
>>>> ROA for all Unallocated Resources." 
>>>> 
>>>> Once allocated to RIRs then IANA can't issue any ROA (they are not doing 
>>>> it to any resource anyway) but there is unallocated address space with 
>>>> RIRs, they can issue AS0 ROAs.
>>>> 
>>>> I hope this clarifies your point of IETF's involvement first.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Aftab A. Siddiqui
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 6:40 AM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
>>>>> IMHO, while I’m perfectly fine with APNIC administering this and 
>>>>> maintaining the ROAs, etc., I believe that the decision to allocate AS0 
>>>>> to this purpose and documentation of this intent should be done through 
>>>>> the IETF and be documented in an STD or RFC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I support the idea, but I believe the proper place to start is the IETF.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Owen
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 9, 2019, at 3:01 AM, Sumon Ahmed Sabir <sasa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear SIG members,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The proposal "prop-132-v001: AS0 for Bogons" has been sent to
>>>>>> the Policy SIG for review.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in
>>>>>> Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
>>>>>> before the meeting.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an
>>>>>> important part of the policy development process. We encourage 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?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Information about this proposal is available at:
>>>>>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-132
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
>>>>>> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> prop-132-v001: AS0 for Bogons
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui
>>>>>>            aftab.siddi...@gmail.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Problem statement
>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>> Bogons are defined in RFC3871, A "Bogon" (plural: "bogons") is a packet
>>>>>> with an IP source address in an address block not yet allocated by IANA
>>>>>> or the Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, RIPE NCC, APNIC, AFRINIC and
>>>>>> LACNIC) as well as all addresses reserved for private or special use by
>>>>>> RFCs.  See [RFC3330] and [RFC1918].
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As of now, there are 287 IPv4 bogons and 73 IPv6 bogons in the global
>>>>>> routing table. In the past, several attempts have been made to filter
>>>>>> out such bogons through various methods such as static filters and 
>>>>>> updating
>>>>>> them occasionally but it is hard to keep an up to date filters, 
>>>>>> TeamCymru and
>>>>>> CAIDA provides full bogon list in text format to update such filters. 
>>>>>> TeamCymru
>>>>>> also provides bogon BGP feed where they send all the bogons via a BGP 
>>>>>> session
>>>>>> which then can be discarded automatically. Beside all these attempts the 
>>>>>> issue
>>>>>> of Bogon Advertisement hasn't be resolved so far.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. Objective of policy change
>>>>>> -----------------------------
>>>>>> The purpose of creating AS0 (zero) ROAs for unallocated address space by 
>>>>>> APNIC
>>>>>> is to resolve the issue of Bogon announcement. When APNIC issues an AS0 
>>>>>> ROA for
>>>>>> unallocated address space in its bucket then it will be marked as 
>>>>>> “Invalid” if
>>>>>> someone tries to advertise the same address space.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Currently, in the absence of any ROA, these bogons are marked as 
>>>>>> “NotFound”. Since
>>>>>> many operators have implemented ROV and either planning or already 
>>>>>> discarding “Invalid”
>>>>>> then all the AS0 ROAs which APNIC will create for unallocated address 
>>>>>> space will be
>>>>>> discarded as well.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3. Situation in other regions
>>>>>> -----------------------------
>>>>>> No such policy in any region at the moment.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>>>>>> ---------------------------
>>>>>> APNIC will create AS0(zero) ROAs for all the unallocated address space 
>>>>>> in its bucket
>>>>>> (IPv4 and IPv6). Any resource holder can create AS0 (zero) ROAs for the 
>>>>>> resources they
>>>>>> have under their account.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A ROA is a positive attestation that a prefix holder has authorised an 
>>>>>> AS to originate a
>>>>>> route for this prefix whereas, a ROA for the same prefixes with AS0 
>>>>>> (zero) origin shows
>>>>>> negative intent from the resource holder that they don't want to 
>>>>>> advertise the prefix(es)
>>>>>> at this point but they are the rightful custodian.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Only APNIC has the authority to create ROAs for address space not yet 
>>>>>> allocated to the members
>>>>>> and only APNIC can issue AS0 (zero) ROAs. Once they ROA is issued and 
>>>>>> APNIC wants to allocate
>>>>>> the address space to its member, simply they can revoke the ROA and 
>>>>>> delegate the address space
>>>>>> to members. (this proposal doesn't formulate operational process).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
>>>>>> -----------------------------
>>>>>> Advantages:
>>>>>> Those implementing ROV globally and discarding the invalids will be able 
>>>>>> to discard bogons from
>>>>>> APNIC region automatically.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Disadvantages:
>>>>>> No apparent disadvantage
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 6. Impact on resource holders
>>>>>> -----------------------------
>>>>>> No impact to APNIC or respective NIR resource holders not implementing 
>>>>>> ROV. Those implementing
>>>>>> ROV and discarding the invalids will not see any bogons in their routing 
>>>>>> table.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 7. References
>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> RFC6483 - https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6483.txt
>>>>>> RFC6491 - https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6491.txt
>>>>>> RFC7607 - https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7607.txt
>>>>>> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy      
>>>>>>      *
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> sig-policy mailing list
>>>>>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>>>>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>>>> 
>>>>> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy       
>>>>>     *
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> sig-policy mailing list
>>>>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>>>>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy          
>>  *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           
> *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

Reply via email to