We may think we are living in a perfect world but we are not. With this 
proposal I'm more worried about the network downtime as managing an AS0 ROA by 
an RIR may be prone to errors as we all do regardless if its a manual or 
automated solution. Operators network downtime doesn't have any effect on APNIC 
business as they can simply say we stuffed up and fixing it.

But think about those networks facing the downtime and their business 
obligations to their customers, who will bear this liability. Sure these 
operators can drag APNIC to the courts but that costs money that they cannot 
afford but accept the stuff ups.

So I am not in favor of asking the RIR to create AS0 ROA.

J Khan

From: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 August 2019 6:16 PM
To: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
Cc: Javed Khan <javedkha...@outlook.com>; Policy SIG <sig-pol...@apnic.net>; 
Sumon Ahmed Sabir <sasa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

Hi Owen,

I don’t think you actually addressed his concern…

Well, let me try again then :)

On Aug 26, 2019, at 17:17 , Aftab Siddiqui 
<aftab.siddi...@gmail.com<mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Javed,
I understand your concern, let me try to explain.

AS-0 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 consider 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.  Since, its not possible to 
generate a prefix with AS-0 there fore it is not possible that valid ROA will 
impact the routing of a prefix even if there is an AS-0 ROA for that prefix. 
Also, AS 0 ROA has a lower relative preference than any other ROA that has a 
routable AS.

Presumably, APNIC would withdraw/invalidate any other ROA for the prefix (or 
its subordinates) at or before the time when they would issue an AS-0 ROA.

Revoking the previously valid ROAs moves the prefix from VALIDATED/GOOD to 
UNVALIDATED/UNKNOWN status in any route validator. This would not affect the 
routing table in most cases since there won’t be a validated route (in this 
instance) to supersede the UNVALIDATED/UNKNOWN route which was previously 

Issuing the AS-0 ROA would subsequently move the prefix from VALIDATED/GOOD or 
UNVALIDATED/UNKNOWN status to INVALID/KNOWN status, thus causing most 
validating routers to discard the route.

There are only few reasons why APNIC would remove a valid ROA from member's 
- Due to Non-payment and APNIC reclaiming the resources and closing the account
- Returned address space by the member for any reason and the space becomes 
part of free pool.

In either case there are some cooling off period as I shared in previous email 
which goes up to 60 days before APNIC can mark those resources as 
free/available. IMO, there is absolutely no reason to have those ROAs in place 
but again this is an operational issue and this policy is not dealing with it. 
But can you suggest any reason when those ROAs should not be removed?

For Example,
- APNIC creates AS-0 ROA for<> (This is an 
unallocated prefix announced AS135754, a bogon).
- If I'm doing ROV then this prefix (<>) 
will become invalid for me because it doesn't have a valid ROA. Anyone not 
doing ROV or any other form of bogon filtering will still accept this prefix 
and keep on treating it as normal.
- Now, APNIC delegates this prefix to someone else after some time (remember 
the AS-0 ROA still exist). That someone is AS139038 (myself).
- Because this prefix is now under my administration I can create ROA with my 
own ASN i.e. AS139038
- Before delegating the prefix to me APNIC should have delete that AS-0 ROA but 
lets assume they forgot to do so or some technical glitch happened and the AS-0 
ROA still exist for this prefix even after delegating it to me
- Since I have created a ROA with my ASN i.e. AS139038 then the validators will 
mark the prefix originating from my ASN as valid even though there is an AS-0 
ROA for that prefix.

Different example:

APNIC issues 2001:db8:feed::/48 to XYZ Corp. who creates a ROA for AS65551.
If you’re doing ROV, then this prefix 2001:db8:feed::/48 is validated assuming 
you receive the route with an AS PATh that matches "* 65551 $”.
Subsequently, XYZ Corp forgets to pay their APNIC invoice and APNIC revokes the 
Under current policy, APNIC Simply deletes the ROA and anyone doing ROV no 
longer sees 2001:db8:feed::/48 as valid, but they don’t see it as invalid. It 
moves to unknown.
In the current (and foreseeable future) world, and unknown route is probably 
still going to be accepted by the vast majority of peers, so this has little 
effect on routing.
Under the proposed policy, at some point, APNIC issues a new ROA for 
2001:db8:feed::/48 tied to AS0.
This has two effects that are not present in the current situation:
1. The route with origin AS6551 is no tagged as “Invalid” — There is no 
matching VALID ROA since they were all revoked by the RIR.
2. Most peers doing ROV will likely drop the prefix. While unknown prefixes are 
not likely dropped, known invalid prefixes are a different matter and
even though some ROV operators will not drop them today, more and more will 
sooner rather than later.

This means that the RIR now has much greater direct power over influencing 
routing decisions than in the pre-RPKI/ROV days.

This policy is addressing only one thing "Control Bogon Announcements". If the 
XYZ Corp hasn't paid the due fees (even after several reminders which are in 
place by the RIR and after the cooling off period as per the operational 
practice of RIR) then XYZ Corp doesn't have the right to use 2001:db8:feed::/48 
and APNIC will mark those resources as free/available. The policy deals with 
the resources part of free/available pool, how they become part of that pool is 
not part of this policy and its an operational issue.

Today, a terminated member can keep on using the resources without any 
consequences unless APNIC reach out to them (which doesn't work at times) or 
their upstream and tell them to stop advertising it.

I’m not saying whether this is good or bad (who am I to judge at this point), 
but I am saying it’s a valid concern and a huge potential operational 
of this proposed policy.

I'm still unable to see that as a concern, XYZ Corp has to pay the fees to use 
those resources. Its part of the membership agreement they signed

"3.2 The Member must: Promptly pay all fees and charges due to the Company in 
accordance with the Fee Schedule"

But again this is not part of the policy.

You can also check prefix<> via any 
validator you are running which has both AS-0 ROA (created by them) and also a 
ROA with their routable ASN (AS397702). Many operators have created AS-0 ROAs 
along side the ROA with their own routable ASN.

Yes, but this doesn’t cover the case Javed expressed concern about.

I hope this helps answer you concern. Please let me know if you still have any 

Even if Javed is somehow satisfied with your answer, I think that we need a 
detailed explanation from staff how this policy would be implemented and
what measures would be taken to avoid the erroneous (and potentially 
disastrous) combination of revocation of all previous ROAs and issuance of
an AS-0 ROA.

The policy doesn't talk about revocation of resources and subsequent ROAs 
associated with it and its mechanism. Fee schedule, Revocation and membership 
termination/cancelation is part of the membership agreement and how APNIC 
executes the revocation is the operational issue of the APNIC.

Also, a clear description of the timelines for how non-payment/cancellation 
would be handled in terms of when ROAs would be revoked
and when the AS-0 ROA would be issued for a reclaimed block in relation to the 
revocation of previous ROAs and in relation to the invoice due date.

I hope that’s a clear enough expression.

I will leave that for APNIC to respond and its a fair enough concern that a 
clarity is needed.

That is my current question about this proposal. I am sure Javed will speak up 
if it doesn’t also reflect his question/concerns.

I once again tried to answer your questions and happy to hear from Javed as 
well :)



Aftab A. Siddiqui

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 12:29 AM Javed Khan 
<javedkha...@outlook.com<mailto:javedkha...@outlook.com>> wrote:
For now, I'm neither for or against this proposal. I think the intention of the 
author is good but the implementation is not as easy as is explained in the 
proposal. QoS is very crucial for ISPs to sustain the fierce market competition 
and if APNIC fails to timely update the AS0 ROAs, this will effect the service 
delivery and/or network downtime.

I request APNIC to provide a detailed review of this proposal from a service 
and legal perspective so the community can better understand the 
implementation, if this proposal reaches consensus.

Kind regards
Javed Khan

on behalf of David Farmer <far...@umn.edu<mailto:far...@umn.edu>>
Sent: Friday, 23 August 2019 10:48 AM
To: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com<mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Sumon Ahmed Sabir <sasa...@gmail.com<mailto:sasa...@gmail.com>>; Policy SIG 
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:04 PM Aftab Siddiqui 
<aftab.siddi...@gmail.com<mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi David,

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 6:36 AM David Farmer 
<far...@umn.edu<mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote:
The problem statement says;

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

So that raises a question, what about resources that are deregisterd because 
they are returned, revoked, or otherwise reclaimed, for any of a myriad of 
reasons, including non-payment of fees? Do they become Bogons with AS0 ROAs the 
moment they are deregistered? Later, if so when? What if there is a ROA for 
them in the system? Are the ROAs removed, if so when?

I also had some concerns about revoked and/or reclaimed space and closed 
account due to non payment so I asked Secretariat in advance and here is the 
APNIC membership account is classified as closed when its status is flagged as 
‘closed’ in APNIC’s internal system.

30 days - payment period upon issuance of invoice, if no payment is received 
within this period member receives expiry notice and the account status becomes 
After 15 days – member receives email notification for closure giving them 
another 15 days to pay
After 15 days – the status of the account becomes 'closed' and all delegated 
resources under the account are reclaimed

All in all members have 60 days period to pay before the status of the account 
becomes ‘closed’.

As long as the account is suspended APNIC doesn't consider those resources as 
free/available/reclaimed and because they are not part of unallocated pool 
thats why no need to create AS0 ROAs for such resources. AS0 ROAs will be 
created once APNIC mark those resources available and remove them from their 
delegation record. Now, the second issue is if there is a ROA for them in the 
system. Because AS 0 ROA has a lower relative preference than any other ROA 
that has a routable AS then APNIC has to somehow delete the existing ROA from 
the system. Its easy if the member account is closed and all resources are 
reclaimed. But I leave this to APNIC to decide how they are going to make that 

Currently, when the account is closed nothing actively makes the resources 
unusable, accept for if you were also changing providers during this timeframe, 
then when the new provider checks the resources they will be unregistered. But 
most providers don't recheck the registration of resources very often, if ever, 
other than at the time of setup of service.

With this proposal at some point, the resource will effectively become unusable 
with nonpayment, when the AS0 ROA is created, and any ROAs are removed, I'm 
fine with this, but it should be called out as a consequence of the proposal, 
so no one can say they didn't realize that is a consequence of the proposal.

This proposal changes the consequences for nonpayment, that should be made 
clear in the proposal one way or another.

Also as Owen noted the RIRs frequently have a hold period after the account is 
closed, resource are usually held for some period after account closure and 
before they are reissued to a new user.

Personally I think they should be deregistered for some amount of time before 
the becoming Bogons and have an AS0 ROA created them, also for the AS0 ROA to 
be effective any ROAs for these deregistered resources need to be removed as 

I would propose something like the following;

  1.  Upon de-reregistration any existing ROAs are removed from RPKI
  2.  30 days after de-registraion, AS0 ROAs are created except for non-payment 
  3.  90 days after de-registraion, AS0 ROAs are created in the case of 
non-payment fees


Thanks for these suggestions but do you think the existing waiting period as 
outlined above in APNIC's response is good enough to mark them as 
free/unallocated? or you think additional cooling-off window should be added 
after the account is closed? How about 30 days after de-registration whether it 
was closed due to non-payment or otherwise.

They were just suggestions, but I will note that you only discussed the timing 
for nonpayment, resources can be returned voluntarily or they can be revoked 
for cause, this is rare but it does happen and the timing assoicated with these 
instances should be understood as well.

Also, I was suggesting the AS0 ROAs should not created immediately on account 
closure but some period of time after that,

Right now there seems to be two phases, suspension and account closure, I'm 
proposing a third phase resource deactivation, the creation of the AS0 ROAs. I 
suppose account closure and resource deactivation can occur simultaneously, I 
think they should be separate as an escalating series of events.


On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:52 AM Sumon Ahmed Sabir 
<sasa...@gmail.com<mailto:sasa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear SIG members

A new version of the proposal "prop-132: AS0 for Bogons"
has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

Information about earlier versions is available from:

You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:

  - Do you support or oppose the proposal?
  - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
  - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?

Please find the text of the proposal below.

Kind Regards,

Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs


prop-132-v002: AS0 for Bogons


Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui

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
table. In the past, several attempts have been made to filter out such
through various methods such as static filters and updating them
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
hasn't be resolved so far.

2. Objective of policy change
The purpose of creating AS0 (zero) ROAs for unallocated address space by
is to resolve the issue of Bogon announcement. When APNIC issues an AS0
ROA for
unallocated address space under APNIC’s administration 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
(IPv4 and IPv6)
for which APNIC is the current administrator. Any resource holder (APNIC
member) can
create AS0 (zero) ROAs for the resources they have under their

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
Those implementing ROV globally and discarding the invalids will be able
to discard bogons from
APNIC region automatically.

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

David Farmer               Email:far...@umn.edu<mailto:email%3afar...@umn.edu>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
sig-policy mailing list

David Farmer               Email:far...@umn.edu<mailto:email%3afar...@umn.edu>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
sig-policy mailing list

*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
sig-policy mailing list

Reply via email to