Hi Satoru san,
I appreciate the feedback from the JP community. I do understand some of
the points you have raised, I will be doing a detailed technical
presentation during the Routing Security SIG to discuss most of the issues
you have raised here. I would request you and other friends from the
community to attend the routing security SIG.

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui


On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 22:43, Satoru Tsurumaki <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team..
>
> I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-151,
> based on a meeting we organised on 15th Feb to discuss these proposals.
>
> Many participants support the intent of this proposal, but do not believe
> it should be discussed in Policy SIG.
>
> (comment details)
> - I agree with the purpose of the proposal, but I wonder if it is not
>   something that should be discussed in the sig policy.
>
> - I think the problem is how to determine which AS number to permit.
>
> - I do not oppose this proposal, but I do not think we should have
>   excessive expectations of IRR.
>
>  - This proposal should be discussed globally by MANRS or others,
>    not by APNIC Policy SIG.
>
> Regards,
>
> Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team
>
> 2023年1月20日(金) 9:25 Bertrand Cherrier <[email protected]>:
>
>
> >
> > Dear SIG members,
> >
> > The proposal "prop-151: Restricting non hierarchical as-set" has been
> > sent to
> > the Policy SIG for review.
> >
> > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 55 on
> > Wednesday, 1 March 2023.
> >
> > https://conference.apnic.net/55/program/schedule/#/day/10
> >
> > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list
> > before the OPM.
> >
> > The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important
> > part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). 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 appended below as well as available
> at:
> >
> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-151
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
> > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > prop-151-v001: Restricting non hierarchical as-set
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui ([email protected])
> >
> >
> > 1. Problem statement
> > --------------------
> > An as-set (RFC 2622 Section 5.1) provides a way to document the
> > relationship between ASes which can then be publicly verified. RFC2622
> > further defines 2 categories for as-set which can be Hierarchical or Non
> > Hierarchical. A hierarchical set name is a sequence of set names and AS
> > numbers separated by colons ‘:’ e.g. AS4826:AS-VOCUS
> >
> > Non hierarchical as-set pose a security issue where any one can create
> > an as-set without any authentication or authorisation e.g. any member
> > can create AS-FACEBOOK (if available) without authorisation from
> > Facebook. Since many peering filters are based on as-set, creating a
> > blank as-set or as-set with wrong members can cause automated filters to
> > apply empty prefix-filters to BGP session.
> >
> >
> > 2. Objective of policy change
> > -----------------------------
> > Restrict APNIC members to create non hierarchical as-set and notify all
> > members who already have non hierarchical as-set that it is recommended
> > to move them to hierarchical as-set.
> >
> >
> > 3. Situation in other regions
> > -----------------------------
> > - RIPE NCC has recently implemented restriction of non hierarchical
> as-set
> > - LACNIC IRR supports only hierarchical as-set
> >
> >
> > 4. Proposed policy solution
> > ---------------------------
> > APNIC members are only allowed to create hierarchical as-set. As defined
> > in the RFC2622 Section 5 "A hierarchical set name is a sequence of set
> > names and AS numbers separated by colons ":". At least one component of
> > such a name must be an actual set name (i.e. start with one of the
> > prefixes above).  All the set name components of an hierarchical name
> > has to be of the same type."
> >
> > An as-set object with name AS65536:...... can only be created by the
> > maintainer of the AS65536. Therefore, this must be the only allowed
> > structure for hierarchical as-set.
> >
> > Any non hierarchical as-set can not be used as a parent to create a
> > hierarchical as-set e.g. AS-AFTAB (non hierarchical as-set) should not
> > be allowed to create AS-AFTAB:AS141384 (hierarchical as-set).
> >
> >
> > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> > -----------------------------
> > Advantages:
> > This will protect members from intentional or unintentional creation of
> > as-set which already exist in other IRR databases creating name
> collision.
> >
> > Disadvantages:
> > Overhead for APNIC to notify existing non hierarchical as-set
> > maintainers about the policy update.
> >
> >
> > 6. Impact on resource holders
> > -----------------------------
> > APNIC has to request members to update their non hierarchical as-set as
> > a new recommended policy. No changes will be enforced to existing non
> > hierarchical as-set.
> >
> >
> > 7. References
> > -------------
> > - Thanks to Job Snijders, Nick Hilliard and other community members on
> > for providing in depth details on various platforms.
> > - RIPE db-wg proposal:
> > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2022-November/007646.html
> > - IRRd 4 update: https://github.com/irrdnet/irrd/issues/408
> > -
> >
> https://www.manrs.org/2022/12/why-network-operators-should-use-hierarchical-as-sets/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to