I am currently neither in favour or opposed to this proposal, but I
would like to ask for a point of clarification...
Is the author suggesting that new fields in the whois be added to
allow this funtionality?
It would seem that this is something which operators could choose to
implement today using the 'remarks' field as they do for BGP community
information as shown below.
$ whois -h rr.Level3.net as702
% RIPEdb(3.0.0a13) with ISI RPSL extensions
aut-num: AS702
as-name: AS702
descr: Verizon Business EMEA - Commercial IP service provider in Europe
admin-c: DUMY-RIPE
tech-c: DUMY-RIPE
remarks: --------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Business filters out inbound prefixes longer than /24.
We also filter any networks within AS702:RS-INBOUND-FILTER.
--------------------------------------------------------------
VzBi uses the following communities with its customers:
702:80 Set Local Pref 80 within AS702
702:120 Set Local Pref 120 within AS702
702:20 Announce only to VzBi AS'es and VzBi customers
702:30 Keep within Europe, don't announce to other VzBi AS's
702:1 Prepend AS702 once at edges of VzBi to Peers
702:2 Prepend AS702 twice at edges of VzBi to Peers
702:3 Prepend AS702 thrice at edges of VzBi to Peers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced communities for customers
702:7020 Do not announce to AS702 peers with a scope of
National but advertise to Global Peers, European
Peers and VzBi customers.
702:7001 Prepend AS702 once at edges of VzBi to AS702
peers with a scope of National.
702:7002 Prepend AS702 twice at edges of VzBi to AS702
peers with a scope of National.
702:7003 Prepend AS702 thrice at edges of VzBi to AS702
peers with a scope of National.
702:8020 Do not announce to AS702 peers with a scope of
European but advertise to Global Peers, National
Peers and VzBi customers.
702:8001 Prepend AS702 once at edges of VzBi to AS702
peers with a scope of European.
702:8002 Prepend AS702 twice at edges of VzBi to AS702
peers with a scope of European.
702:8003 Prepend AS702 thrice at edges of VzBi to AS702
peers with a scope of European.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Additional details of the VzBi communities are located at:
http://www.verizonbusiness.com/uk/customer/bgp/
--------------------------------------------------------------
Details of VzBi's peering policy and how to get in touch with
VzBi regarding peering policy matters can be found at:
http://www.verizonbusiness.com/uunet/peering/
--------------------------------------------------------------
remarks: ****************************
remarks: * THIS OBJECT IS MODIFIED
remarks: * Please note that all data that is generally regarded
as personal
remarks: * data has been removed from this object.
remarks: * To view the original object, please query the RIPE Database at:
remarks: * http://www.ripe.net/whois
remarks: ****************************
mnt-by: WCOM-EMEA-RICE-MNT
changed: unread@ripe.net 20000101
source: RIPE
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean@internetnz.net.nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Masato Yamanishi myamanis@gmail.com wrote:
Dear SIG members
The Problem statement "Registration of detailed assignment information
in whois DB" has been assigned a Policy Proposal number following the
submission of a new version sent to the Policy SIG for consideration.
The proposal, "prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment
information in whois DB" now includes an objective and proposed solution.
Information about this and earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115
You are encouraged 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?
Regards,
Masato
prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in
whois DB
Proposer: Ruri Hiromi
hiromi@inetcore.com
Tomohiro Fujisaki
fujisaki@syce.net
- Problem statement
Recently, there are some cases need to get IP address assignment
information in more detail to specify user IP address.
With out this information, operators cannot filter out specific
address range, and it might lead to 'over-filter' (i.e. filtering
whole ISP's address range).
For example:
1) 'Port' range information in IPv4
ISPs are using 'CGN' or other kinds of IPv4 address sharing
technology with assignment of IP address and specified port
range to their users.
In this case, port information is necessary to specify one user.
ex) 192.0.2.24/32 1-256 is for HomeA
192.0.2.24/32 257-511 is for HomeB
or 192.0.2.0/24 1-65536 is shared address of ISP-X
minimum size is /32
2) address assignment size information in IPv6
The IPv6 address assignment size may be different from ISP to
ISP, and address ranges in one ISP. Address assignment prefix
size will be necessary.
ex) 2001:db8:1::0/56 is for HomeA
2001:db8:1:1::0/48 is for HomeB
or 2001:db8:1::/36's minimum size is /56
- Objective of policy change
Lots of operators look a record when harmful behavior coming to
their network to identify its IP address confirming it can be
filtered or not.
The goal is providing more specific information to support these
actions.
- Situation in other regions
No same regulation/discussion can be seen in other regions.
- Proposed policy solution
Provide accurate filtering information generated from whois DB.
For IPv4, propose to add 'port range' information to IP address
entry.
For IPv6, propose to provide 'assignment prefix size' information
for specific IPv6 address.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
registration rule will move to more strict manner.
strict watch and control in registration of database records.
additional record or option will be considered.
privilege for withdrawing detailed information will be set for these
records.
- Impact on APNIC
This might be beyond the scope of using whois DB.
- Other Consideration
For the security reason, this detailed records may be able to see
only by operators.(some kind of user control/privilege setting is
needed)
For hosting services, /32 in IPv4 and /128 in IPv6 registration
should be discussed based on its operability and possibility. But a
harmful activities to filter by IP addresses are coming from hosting
services as well. Here it seemed to be some demands.
References
TBD
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy