I do not support this proposal, on the basis that it seems its intent is to extend the scope of the APNIC whois database well beyond its traditional scope.

I believe the purpose of the APNIC database is to assert the authorisation of an assignee to use specified IP addresses, for purposes such as route validations or route dispute resolutions. The database only relates to the network layer identifiers that APNIC is chartered to administrate (i.e. IP addresses and AS numbers).

APNIC does not administrate or register the use of transport-layer identifiers (TCP or UDP ports); APNIC does not have the charter to state that certain TCP/UDP ports have been duly assigned and provide any authority for their use. Also, standard Internet routing does not function on the basis of TCP/UDP ports.

I therefore feel that any recording of any TCP/UDP port assignments would be outside of the scope of APNIC's business.


††† David Woodgate

On 1/03/2015 11:30 PM, Ajay Kumar wrote:
Personally,I don't see any benefit,which community may be getting after accepting this proposal. I don't support this proposal.
Ajai Kumar

On 24 February 2015 at 22:41, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I donít believe the proposal offers enough benefit to be worth what implementation would likely

First, I am sincerely hoping that CGN is an extremely temporary situation. Iím not sure
it should be worth the effort to recode the registry to support it.

Second, Iím wondering if thereís any real advantage to having this level of detail on
residential subscribers that donít even get full addresses, since we donít really tend
to have it for single-address subscribers now.

IMHO, best to just let each ISP keep this information for themselves as the relevant contact
for abuse and such is usually the ISP and not the residential user anyway.


On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:53 , Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

And, here is prop-115. No comment has not been made for this proposal.

If reached consensus, it may needs significant change for whois database.
I just reviewed implementation impact assessment by the Secretariat,
and it says it might take more than 6 months.
I think same thing will happen for whois database of each NIRs.
And if your company have a system linked with APNIC/NIR whois database, it will be impacted also.

As Chair, I'm always very neutral for each proposal, including prop-115.
However, I would like to emphasis prop-115 should be discussed more widely as it has wide impact.
It is very appreciated if you will express your views.

Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting)†

2015-02-04 14:52 GMT-06:00 Masato Yamanishi <myamanis@gmail.com>:
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?



prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in
† † † † † † † †whois DB

Proposer:† † † Ruri Hiromi
† † † † † † † †hiromi@inetcore.com

† † † † † † † †Tomohiro Fujisaki
† † † † † † † †fujisaki@syce.net

1. 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)††1-256 is for HomeA
† † † † † †††257-511 is for HomeB

† † † † or††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

2. 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.

3. Situation in other regions

† † No same regulation/discussion can be seen in other regions.

4. 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.

5. Advantages / Disadvantages


†- operators can set filtering by IP address based on correct assignment
† †information base.

†- users who share same address space can be avoid to be including bulk
† †filtering.


†- 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.

6. Impact on APNIC

† † This might be beyond the scope of using whois DB.

7. 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.


† † TBD

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

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

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