Ok I get your point now. During my ops days I used to manage "Martians" (reserved blocks/special use blocks) and "Bogons" (unallocated address blocks) prefix filters :)
Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:09 AM Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > Fair enough. I tend to think of Bogons as “Those addresses which shouldn’t > be advertised _EVER_” (e.g. 10.0.0.0/8) while I tend to think of > Unallocated as being more transient in nature. > > I realize that makes 224.0.0.0/4 classification as a bogon a bit of a > grey area, while including all unallocated space makes a cleaner definition. > > I suppose part of the reason for that was I always tended to maintain > bogons and unallocated as separate lists in ACLs and I usually kept the > unallocated one in the dynamic configuration (in Juniper land) since it > tended to need frequent update. > > Owen > > > On Aug 21, 2019, at 16:02 , Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:10 AM Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don’t tend to regard unallocated as “bogons”, >> > > Why is that? > RFC3871 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3871> - Bogon: 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, > APNIC...) as well as all addresses reserved for private or special use by > RFCs. > > >> but sure, if this proposal is strictly about unallocated space in the >> APNIC free pool(s), then I have no problem with that. >> > > Yes, the policy is strictly talking about "unallocated address space" in > APNIC free pool. > > >> >> Owen >> >> >> On Aug 15, 2019, at 17:15 , Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 8/15/2019 12:19 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: >>> >>> Hi Owen, >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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 >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 protected] >>>>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>>>> * >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> sig-policy mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing >>> [email protected]https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >> >> >> >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
