Hi Job,
I raised these questions as part of my presentation and happy to respond
here as well.


Aftab A. Siddiqui

On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 3:10 AM Job Snijders <j...@ntt.net> wrote:

> Dear all,
> Since we are in final comment period, I’d like to learn more about the
> below questions.
> Kind regards,
> Job
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 17:32 Job Snijders <j...@ntt.net> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> I'm happy to see the proposal has been updated, I think it'll make
>> discussion easier.
>> I have some questions:
>> 1/  How much trouble are those ~ 100 prefixes actually causing the
>>     community? I'm sure we all agree that its not fair that these
>>     entities are announcing space that wasn't assigned / allocated to
>>     them; and probably not paying the bill either... and it would be
>>     cool if those 100 prefixes can be assigned to elgible end users
>>     through the normal process; but that's not worth infinite effort.
As a member of the community and a paying member of APNIC, even a single
prefix from unallocated block bothers me because its one entity using the
prefix without paying a dime while I pay in full.

>> 1a/ What does APNIC currently do to 'reclaim' or 'clean up' space that
>>     APNIC would like to assign to an eligible enduser, but is currently
>>     being announce by some unrelated third party? What is today's
>>     process?
They certainly have processes in place, which ofcourse not working. This is
not the first time I have raised this question. I raised it in multiple
meetings and answer was same "we are trying". Here is the transcript from
APNIC46. (vogons = bogons)

>>Aftab Siddiqui: Gaurab invited me up here, so I can't say no.  Just a
quick question on the treasurer's report. I just want to highlight one
important thing, and that is related to lost revenue.  I can give a few
examples, but let's not call names here.  There are certain --
I mean, everyone is aware of vogons, Geoff will look at me now.  So as per
the CiDR report, there are vogons
currently advertised in our region and there are certain 49 organisations
which have been announcing unallocated address space for more than one
year.  I just checked it, it is five /22 which is roughly around $3,500 in
lost revenue. So what APNIC is planning to do about that?  Any
actions or anything?  The member was de-registered early last year.  I'm
talking about one-year loss in revenue.

>>Gaurab Raj Upadhaya: Thank you.  I think I'll let Paul handle that.

>>Paul Wilson: This is something that you have mentioned to us before,
Aftab, and it is something that is being looked at.  I'm afraid that for
the latest status I'll have to defer to George Kuo, who's approaching the

>>George Kuo: Thanks, Paul, and thanks, Aftab, for your question.  We are
of this announcement activities. Guangliang's team, the registration team,
do plan to check it on a very regular basis and will be doing our best to
contact all the contact information we have. But if there is anything
better we can do, I'm happy to hear information from either Aftab yourself,
or anyone here.  Thanks will.

>> 1b/ Why should it be APNIC itself that makes the ROAs for unassigned
>>     space? Perhaps the process should remain as-is: APNIC assigns space
>>     to an enduser, and the enduser themselves can create a ROA if they
>>     need to 'reclaim' the space. Using ROAs to supress rogue
>>     announcements is great, but this mechanism can be used either before
>>     and after assignment. I think the answer to this question in part
>>     will derive from how we feel about (1) and what APNIC does in (1a).
There are 3 issues with as-is process,
1 - the issues of unallocated address space won't be solved.
2 - member who receive the block might be tainted due to abuse/spam etc.
3 - most importantly, it is against the goal of NRO "

What are the goals of the NRO?

The main goals of the NRO are to:
Protect the unallocated Internet number resource pool
Promote and protect the bottom-up policy development process
Act as a focal point for Internet community input into the RIR system

>> 2/  Has the community considered whether this proposal should be
>>     implemented under the current 'production' APNIC TAL, or perhaps a
>>     new TAL should be instantiated (let's call it the "APNIC-UNASSIGNED
>>     TAL").  An advantage of using a separate TAL is that may address
>>     some concerns about the RIRs operational involvement in routing.
>>     Operators would need to explicitly opt-in into receiving ROAs for
>>     the unassigned/reserved space.
This is an operational issue and can definitely be considered but this is
something we can discuss as part of the SIG which we have requested EC to
form to discuss RPKI related issues.

Kind regards,
>> Job
> *              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

Reply via email to