Dear colleagues

Version 1 of prop-109v001: Allocate and to APNIC
Labs as Research Prefixes, reached consensus at the APNIC 37 Policy SIG
and later at the APNIC Member Meeting.

This proposal will now move to the next step in the APNIC Policy
Development Process and is being returned to the Policy SIG mailing list
for the final comment period.

Following the implementation of prop-108: Suggested changes to the APNIC
Policy Development Process, the Comment Period will be 4 weeks. This may
be extended to 8 weeks at the discretion of the Policy SIG Chair.

At the end of this period the Policy SIG Chairs will evaluate comments
made and determine if the consensus reached at APNIC 37 still holds.

If consensus holds, the Chairs of the Policy SIG will ask the Executive
Council to endorse the proposal for implementation.

   - Send all comments and questions to: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
   - Deadline for comments:  24:00 (UTC+10) Monday, 31 March 2014

Proposal details

Proposal details, including the full text of the proposal, history, and
links to the APNIC 37 meeting archive, are available at:


Andy and Masato

prop-109v001: Allocate and to APNIC Labs as
              Research Prefixes

Proposer:        Geoff Huston,

1. Problem statement

   Network 1 ( was allocated to APNIC by the IANA on 19
   January 2010. In line with standard practice APNIC's Resource Quality
   Assurance activities determined that 95% of the address space would
   be suitable for delegation as it was found to be relatively free of
   unwanted traffic [1].

   Testing, conducted by APNIC R&D found that certain blocks within
   Network 1 attract significant amounts of unsolicited incoming
   traffic. [2]

   Analysis revealed that, prior to any delegations being made from the
   block, attracted an average of 140Mbps - 160Mbps of
   incoming traffic as a continuous sustained traffic level, with peak
   bursts of over 800Mbps. This analysis highlighted the individual
   addresses as the single address with the highest level of
   unsolicited traffic, and it was recommended that the covering /24
   prefix, and also be withheld from allocation pending a
   decision as to the longer term disposition of these address prefixes.

   As these addresses attract extremely high levels of unsolicited
   incoming traffic, the blocks have been withheld from allocation and
   periodically checked to determine if the incoming traffic profile has
   altered. None has been observed to date. After four years, it now
   seems unlikely there will ever be any change in the incoming traffic

   This proposal is intended to define a long term approach to the
   management of and

2. Objective of policy change

   The objective of this proposal is to allocate and to APNIC Labs, to be used as research prefixes.

3. Situation in other regions

   Other RIRs (notably the RIPE NCC) have used their policy process to
   review self-allocations of number resources to the RIR as a means of
   ensuring transparency of the address allocation process. This
   proposal is consistent with such a practice.

4. Proposed policy solution

   This proposal recommends that the APNIC community agree to allocate and to APNIC Labs as research prefixes. The
   intent is to use these prefixes as passive traffic collectors in
   order to generate a long term profile of unsolicited traffic in the
   IPv4 internet that is directed to well known addresses to study
   various aspects of traffic profiles and route scope leakages.

   An experiment in gathering a profile of unsolicited traffic directed
   at was started by APNIC Labs in 2013, in collaboration
   with Google. This experiment was set up as a temporary exercise to
   understand the longer term trend of the traffic profile associated
   with this address. Through this policy proposal we would like to
   place this research experiment on a more certain longer term

5. Advantages / Disadvantages


   - It will make use of this otherwise unusable address space.

   - The research analysis may assist network operators to understand
     the effectiveness of route scoping approaches.


   - The proposer is unclear what the downsides to this action may be.
     The consideration of this proposal by the community may allow
     potential downsides to be identified.

6. Impact on APNIC

   There are no impacts on APNIC.


   [1] Resource Quality Good for Most of IPv4 Network “1”

   [2] Traffic in Network