Hi Owen, Just to give you an example, all unallocated address space from 103/8 are under APNIC's management unless they were transferred to other RIRs and then reclaimed by that RIR due to whatever reason. This policy covers all unallocated address space under APNIC's management and asking APNIC to create AS0 ROAs for all those unallocated addresses.
Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:03 AM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > 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 >>> email@example.com >>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> firstname.lastname@example.org >>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> >> > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing > email@example.com://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy > > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy > * > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy mailing list > email@example.com > https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy