Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None.
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
*Recommendations:*
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
*Clarification:*
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We 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-147Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
- Objective of policy change
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
- Situation in other regions
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
- Proposed policy solution
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy -https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email tosig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
*Recommendations:*
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
*Clarification:*
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We 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-147Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
- Objective of policy change
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
- Situation in other regions
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
- Proposed policy solution
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sunny, all, Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text: “Furthermore, from 1^st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.” Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.net> escribió: Hi all, This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page. http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147 APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them. APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022. https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4.pdf *Recommendations:* For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s". Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023. *Clarification:* This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely. Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members, The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022. https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8 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-147 Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs --------------------------------------------------------------- prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management ---------------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com) 1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources. The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status. Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them. If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason. One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed. To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated. Disadvantages: None. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None. 7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy -https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email tosig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net -- _______________________________________________________________________ Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD |http://www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com <https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C2f5af80802694696a9b908da85966a2e%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969178333408597%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9w0PH%2BkX88gQwLmSR4bBQQYu2XI%2F3IuVfg5olmwkdWo%3D&reserved=0> The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81 These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175 We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581 We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44 No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4 The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote: Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote: Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text: “Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.netmailto:sunny@apnic.net> escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupammailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.commailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
None.
_______________________________________________
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.comhttps://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in
the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not
successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
*From: *Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net *Date: *Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm *To: *Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < jordi.palet@consulintel.es> *Cc: *sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
*Recommendations:*
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
*Clarification:*
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We 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-147Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
- Objective of policy change
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
- Situation in other regions
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
- Proposed policy solution
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards, Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in
the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not
successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
*From: *Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net *Date: *Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm *To: *Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < jordi.palet@consulintel.es> *Cc: *sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
*Recommendations:*
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
*Clarification:*
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We 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-147Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
- Objective of policy change
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
- Situation in other regions
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
- Proposed policy solution
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
If I understood correctly the implications of the EC decision, *if* tis policy proposal doesn’t go thru they will become reserved anyway.
Could the staff confirm that?
Instead, with the proposal, there will be additional 12 months, to react before that.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 7:59, "Brett O'Hara" brett@fj.com.au escribió:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Jordi, I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards, Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in
the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but
not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
*From: *Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net *Date: *Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm *To: *Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < jordi.palet@consulintel.es> *Cc: *sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
*Recommendations:*
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
*Clarification:*
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We 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-147Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
- Objective of policy change
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
- Situation in other regions
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
- Proposed policy solution
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Aftab,
APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 TAL as a routing information service only.
https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limita...
Hi Jordi,
If I understood correctly the implications of the EC decision, *if* tis policy proposal doesn’t go thru they will become reserved anyway.
Could the staff confirm that?
Yes, as per the EC resolution 2021-09, all historical resource holders will need to become, or remain, a member or non-member of APNIC on and from 1 January 2023, in order to continue to receive registry services from APNIC. Any historical resources that are not managed under an APNIC account from 1 January 2023 will be removed from whois and placed into “Reserved” status.
Our understanding is that your proposal is to address the actions that need to be taken 12 months after these resources have been placed into reserved status.
Thanks Vivek
From: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com Date: Saturday, 27 August 2022 at 2:30 pm To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management Hi Jordi, I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara <brett@fj.com.aumailto:brett@fj.com.au> wrote: Hi Jordi and SIG The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards, Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote: Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.aumailto:andrew@rwts.com.au> escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.netmailto:vivek@apnic.net> wrote: Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81 These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175 We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581 We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44 No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4 The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.netmailto:sunny@apnic.net> Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager <andrew@rwts.com.aumailto:andrew@rwts.com.au>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.esmailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote: Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote: Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text: “Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.netmailto:sunny@apnic.net> escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupammailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.commailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
None.
_______________________________________________
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.comhttps://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C3740ddd1234b48b408be08da87e4d1ad%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637971714095792757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lEVBTEkXEvuYhVUWR7YWdA%2BhTITV8RybFUsAKy%2FrKM8%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.comhttps://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C3740ddd1234b48b408be08da87e4d1ad%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637971714095792757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lEVBTEkXEvuYhVUWR7YWdA%2BhTITV8RybFUsAKy%2FrKM8%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Thanks for your clarification Vivek.
Text of the Resolution is as follows;
Resolution 2021-09: The EC resolved that all historical resource holders will need to become, or remain, a Member or Non-member of APNIC on and from [1 January 2023], in order to continue to receive registry services from APNIC.
Interpretation from the secretariat via Vivek is that this implies all unclaimed historical records will be placed in reserved status, regardless of being advertised or not, and subject to ROA AS0 under 5.1.4 on the 1st of January 2023.
I see prop-147 is an interpretation of EC resolution 2021-09 and attempts to clarify this within the Policy.
My first question is procedural and governance related. Can or should the secretariat implement the EC resolution without the Policy being updated?
If the EC could be considered an effective co-sponsor of this proposal, my previous comments now have a broader audience.
Does the EC still believe the date they set on EC Resolution 2021-09 is still reasonable given the progress of the HRM process and the current impact to the potential 193k+ ((175 in progress + 581 no response)* 256 minimum size) active Internet endpoints and how does the Policy SIG address the EC for their response on this consideration?
Regards, Brett
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 6:15 PM Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 TAL as a routing information service only.
https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limita...
Hi Jordi,
If I understood correctly the implications of the EC decision, *if* tis
policy proposal doesn’t go thru they will become reserved anyway.
Could the staff confirm that?
Yes, as per the EC resolution 2021-09, all historical resource holders will need to become, or remain, a member or non-member of APNIC on and from 1 January 2023, in order to continue to receive registry services from APNIC. Any historical resources that are not managed under an APNIC account from 1 January 2023 will be removed from whois and placed into “Reserved” status.
Our understanding is that your proposal is to address the actions that need to be taken 12 months after these resources have been placed into reserved status.
Thanks
Vivek
*From: *Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com *Date: *Saturday, 27 August 2022 at 2:30 pm *To: *JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es *Cc: *sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Jordi,
I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
BrettOn Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in
the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not
successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
*From: *Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net *Date: *Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm *To: *Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < jordi.palet@consulintel.es> *Cc: *sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
*Recommendations:*
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
*Clarification:*
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We 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-147Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
- Objective of policy change
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
- Situation in other regions
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
- Proposed policy solution
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C3740ddd1234b48b408be08da87e4d1ad%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637971714095792757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lEVBTEkXEvuYhVUWR7YWdA%2BhTITV8RybFUsAKy%2FrKM8%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C3740ddd1234b48b408be08da87e4d1ad%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637971714095792757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lEVBTEkXEvuYhVUWR7YWdA%2BhTITV8RybFUsAKy%2FrKM8%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Brett,
Somehow, I actually responded to your last point before reading it in my previous email.
I think is really bad that the EC takes decisions that belong to the community, unless the community is being called for considering a proposal. I don’t think it happened, and actually instead, when I submitted a proposal, it was rejected. The EC, the chairs and the community should learn a lesson from this.
And yes, the EC decision is binding for the staff, unless we make a policy proposal to disallow the EC decision(s) or even change the bylaws. Too late anyway for this meeting.
And to be clear, I’ve not talked to the EC about this proposal, neither the one I submmited about a year ago. I was already considering this as a result of the staff presentation on several issues with policies.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 29/8/22, 13:17, "Brett O'Hara" brett@fj.com.au escribió:
Thanks for your clarification Vivek.
Text of the Resolution is as follows;
Resolution 2021-09: The EC resolved that all historical resource holders will need to become, or remain, a Member or Non-member of APNIC on and from [1 January 2023], in order to continue to receive registry services from APNIC.
Interpretation from the secretariat via Vivek is that this implies all unclaimed historical records will be placed in reserved status, regardless of being advertised or not, and subject to ROA AS0 under 5.1.4 on the 1st of January 2023.
I see prop-147 is an interpretation of EC resolution 2021-09 and attempts to clarify this within the Policy.
My first question is procedural and governance related. Can or should the secretariat implement the EC resolution without the Policy being updated?
If the EC could be considered an effective co-sponsor of this proposal, my previous comments now have a broader audience.
Does the EC still believe the date they set on EC Resolution 2021-09 is still reasonable given the progress of the HRM process and the current impact to the potential 193k+ ((175 in progress + 581 no response)* 256 minimum size) active Internet endpoints and how does the Policy SIG address the EC for their response on this consideration?
Regards,
Brett
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 6:15 PM Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 TAL as a routing information service only.
https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limita...
Hi Jordi,
If I understood correctly the implications of the EC decision, *if* tis policy proposal doesn’t go thru they will become reserved anyway.
Could the staff confirm that?
Yes, as per the EC resolution 2021-09, all historical resource holders will need to become, or remain, a member or non-member of APNIC on and from 1 January 2023, in order to continue to receive registry services from APNIC. Any historical resources that are not managed under an APNIC account from 1 January 2023 will be removed from whois and placed into “Reserved” status.
Our understanding is that your proposal is to address the actions that need to be taken 12 months after these resources have been placed into reserved status.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com Date: Saturday, 27 August 2022 at 2:30 pm To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Jordi,
I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
On 07-Sep-2022, at 14:19, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Brett,
Somehow, I actually responded to your last point before reading it in my previous email.
I think is really bad that the EC takes decisions that belong to the community, unless the community is being called for considering a proposal. I don’t think it happened, and actually instead, when I submitted a proposal, it was rejected. The EC, the chairs and the community should learn a lesson from this.
This is not the only instance where APNIC EC has decided the policies without even consulting with community.
And yes, the EC decision is binding for the staff, unless we make a policy proposal to disallow the EC decision(s) or even change the bylaws. Too late anyway for this meeting.
And to be clear, I’ve not talked to the EC about this proposal, neither the one I submmited about a year ago. I was already considering this as a result of the staff presentation on several issues with policies.
Regards, Jordi
@jordipalet
El 29/8/22, 13:17, "Brett O'Hara" <brett@fj.com.au mailto:brett@fj.com.au> escribió:
Thanks for your clarification Vivek.
Text of the Resolution is as follows;
Resolution 2021-09: The EC resolved that all historical resource holders will need to become, or remain, a Member or Non-member of APNIC on and from [1 January 2023], in order to continue to receive registry services from APNIC.
Interpretation from the secretariat via Vivek is that this implies all unclaimed historical records will be placed in reserved status, regardless of being advertised or not, and subject to ROA AS0 under 5.1.4 on the 1st of January 2023.
I see prop-147 is an interpretation of EC resolution 2021-09 and attempts to clarify this within the Policy.
My first question is procedural and governance related. Can or should the secretariat implement the EC resolution without the Policy being updated?
If the EC could be considered an effective co-sponsor of this proposal, my previous comments now have a broader audience.
Does the EC still believe the date they set on EC Resolution 2021-09 is still reasonable given the progress of the HRM process and the current impact to the potential 193k+ ((175 in progress + 581 no response)* 256 minimum size) active Internet endpoints and how does the Policy SIG address the EC for their response on this consideration?
Regards, Brett
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 6:15 PM Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.net mailto:vivek@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Aftab,
APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 TAL as a routing information service only.
https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limita... https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limitations-of-liability-for-rpki-2/
Hi Jordi,
If I understood correctly the implications of the EC decision, *if* tis policy proposal doesn’t go thru they will become reserved anyway.
Could the staff confirm that?
Yes, as per the EC resolution 2021-09, all historical resource holders will need to become, or remain, a member or non-member of APNIC on and from 1 January 2023, in order to continue to receive registry services from APNIC. Any historical resources that are not managed under an APNIC account from 1 January 2023 will be removed from whois and placed into “Reserved” status.
Our understanding is that your proposal is to address the actions that need to be taken 12 months after these resources have been placed into reserved status.
Thanks Vivek
From: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, 27 August 2022 at 2:30 pm To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>, Brett O'Hara <brett@fj.com.au mailto:brett@fj.com.au> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Jordi, I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara <brett@fj.com.au mailto:brett@fj.com.au> wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards, Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards, Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.au mailto:andrew@rwts.com.au> escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.net mailto:vivek@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81 These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175 We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581 We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44 No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4 The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net> Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager <andrew@rwts.com.au mailto:andrew@rwts.com.au>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote: > Hi Sunny, all, > > Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text: > “Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.” > > Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version. > > > Regards, > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > > > > El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net> escribió: > > Hi all, > > This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also > available on the proposal page. > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147 http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147 > > APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them. > > APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022. > > https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4.... https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4.pdf > > Recommendations: > > For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s". > > Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023. > > Clarification: > > This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely. > > Regards, > Sunny > APNIC Secretariat > > On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: >> Dear SIG members, >> >> The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been >> sent to the Policy SIG for review. >> >> It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on >> Thursday, 15 September 2022. >> >> https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8 https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8 >> >> 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-147 http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147 >> >> Regards, >> Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam mailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) >> Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com mailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com) >> >> >> 1. Problem statement >> -------------------- >> Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources. >> >> The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status. >> >> Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition. >> >> >> 2. Objective of policy change >> ----------------------------- >> Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them. >> >> If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason. >> >> One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed. >> >> To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months. >> >> >> 3. Situation in other regions >> ----------------------------- >> In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies. >> >> >> 4. Proposed policy solution >> --------------------------- >> Proposed policy solution (option 6-months): >> >> Actual text: >> 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) >> To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. >> >> To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. >> >> Proposed text: >> 4.3. Historical Resources Management >> Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. >> >> Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. >> >> Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): >> Actual text: >> 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) >> To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. >> >> To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. >> >> Proposed text: >> 4.3. Historical Resources Management >> Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. >> >> Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. >> >> >> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages >> ----------------------------- >> Advantages: >> Fulfilling the objective above indicated. >> >> Disadvantages: >> None. >> >> >> 6. Impact on resource holders >> ----------------------------- >> None. >> >> >> 7. References >> ------------- >> None. >> _______________________________________________ >> sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net > > -- > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) > Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development > > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 > PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 > 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net/ > _______________________________________________________________________ > > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all > copies of the original message. > > _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C3740ddd1234b48b408be08da87e4d1ad%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637971714095792757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lEVBTEkXEvuYhVUWR7YWdA%2BhTITV8RybFUsAKy%2FrKM8%3D&reserved=0 > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C3740ddd1234b48b408be08da87e4d1ad%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637971714095792757%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lEVBTEkXEvuYhVUWR7YWdA%2BhTITV8RybFUsAKy%2FrKM8%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com http://www.theipv6company.com/ The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Vivek,
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 18:15, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 TAL as a routing information service only.
https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limita...
That is incorrect, there are more than 160 IPv4 prefixes (I haven't checked v6 yet) which are marked as either "reserved" or "available" in the APNIC delegation file and they don't exist in AS-0 ROA. So there must be some policy which is in place.
delegate file: 2.3|apnic|20220830|158240||20220829|+1000 AS0 ROA: SigningTime: 2022-08-30T01:10:15Z
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
Question for the staff on this. Is the AS0 proposal not sufficient to comply with Aftab observation, or it is just something in the backlog of pending secretariat activities, or what is the reason for that?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30/8/22, 3:48, "Aftab Siddiqui" aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com escribió:
Hi Vivek,
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 18:15, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 TAL as a routing information service only.
https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limita...
That is incorrect, there are more than 160 IPv4 prefixes (I haven't checked v6 yet) which are marked as either "reserved" or "available" in the APNIC delegation file and they don't exist in AS-0 ROA. So there must be some policy which is in place.
delegate file: 2.3|apnic|20220830|158240||20220829|+1000
AS0 ROA: SigningTime: 2022-08-30T01:10:15Z
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Jordi, Aftab,
I have summarised the process APNIC uses to add/remove prefixes from APNIC AS0 ROA. This may help explain why you did not find some of the prefixes in AS0 ROA.
Once a prefix is marked as 'reserved' it is added into AS0 ROA after 7 days to cause as little disruption as possible and avoid any inadvertent actions. Where possible, we also aggregate the prefixes that are added into AS0 ROA. When a prefix is delegated to a Member, it is removed from AS0 within 5 minute window.
As per our implementation of APNIC EC resolution 2021-09, any historical resources that are not maintained under an APNIC account will be removed from whois and marked as reserved on 1 January, 2023. 7 days after that, those reserved prefixes will be added into AS0 ROA.
Thanks Vivek
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Date: Wednesday, 7 September 2022 at 6:51 pm To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management Question for the staff on this. Is the AS0 proposal not sufficient to comply with Aftab observation, or it is just something in the backlog of pending secretariat activities, or what is the reason for that?
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 30/8/22, 3:48, "Aftab Siddiqui" <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.commailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> escribió:
Hi Vivek,
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 18:15, Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.netmailto:vivek@apnic.net> wrote: Hi Aftab,
APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 TAL as a routing information service only.
https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limita...
That is incorrect, there are more than 160 IPv4 prefixes (I haven't checked v6 yet) which are marked as either "reserved" or "available" in the APNIC delegation file and they don't exist in AS-0 ROA. So there must be some policy which is in place.
delegate file: 2.3|apnic|20220830|158240||20220829|+1000 AS0 ROA: SigningTime: 2022-08-30T01:10:15Z
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Vivek,
I 100% understand and, within reason, support the EC resolution 2021-09. I have attended many presentations on this topic and have gone through the process to acquire custodianship of my Historical Resources, and as such am not personally concerned about my situation.
I just can't see anywhere in the existing APNIC Internet Number Resources Policy that the secretariat currently has the power on the 1st of Jan 2023 to place Historical Resources advertised on the Internet into Reserved status. I may have misread or misinterpreted, and I'm happy to be proved wrong here.
Can you please advise where in the Policy APNIC is currently empowered to take this action?
Regard, Brett
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 8:35 PM Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Jordi, Aftab,
I have summarised the process APNIC uses to add/remove prefixes from APNIC AS0 ROA. This may help explain why you did not find some of the prefixes in AS0 ROA.
Once a prefix is marked as 'reserved' it is added into AS0 ROA after 7 days to cause as little disruption as possible and avoid any inadvertent actions. Where possible, we also aggregate the prefixes that are added into AS0 ROA. When a prefix is delegated to a Member, it is removed from AS0 within 5 minute window.
As per our implementation of APNIC EC resolution 2021-09, any historical resources that are not maintained under an APNIC account will be removed from whois and marked as reserved on 1 January, 2023. 7 days after that, those reserved prefixes will be added into AS0 ROA.
Thanks
Vivek
*From: *JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Date: *Wednesday, 7 September 2022 at 6:51 pm *To: *sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Question for the staff on this. Is the AS0 proposal not sufficient to comply with Aftab observation, or it is just something in the backlog of pending secretariat activities, or what is the reason for that?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30/8/22, 3:48, "Aftab Siddiqui" aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com escribió:
Hi Vivek,
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 18:15, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 TAL as a routing information service only.
https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limita...
That is incorrect, there are more than 160 IPv4 prefixes (I haven't checked v6 yet) which are marked as either "reserved" or "available" in the APNIC delegation file and they don't exist in AS-0 ROA. So there must be some policy which is in place.
delegate file: 2.3|apnic|20220830|158240||20220829|+1000
AS0 ROA: SigningTime: 2022-08-30T01:10:15Z
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi All,
Just clarify what I'm asking for.
5.5.2 States; APNIC will protect all registrations of Historical Internet resources with the APNIC-HM maintainer, a practice consistent with the management of current resources.
To ensure integrity of information, APNIC will not update historical information in the APNIC Whois Database until the resource holder demonstrates the organization’s right to the resources and enters a formal agreement with APNIC either as a member account or Non-Member account. The existing 4.2.1 states;
A significant number of historical resources registered in the APNIC Whois Database are not announced to the global routing table.
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. By my interpretation, under current Policy, APNIC doesn't currently have the power to amend the whois records for Historical Resources and enact the implementation of EC 2021-09 for routed Historical Internet resources as stated by Vivek below. Also, enacting this policy against globally un-routed resources may also not be technically valid.
If this is the case, APNIC can not proceed with its implementation from 1-Jan-2023 and needs to enact a change to the APNIC Internet Number Resource Policy to achieve these outcomes.
This brings me to prop-147 which replaces 4.2.1 with;
[Add] Section 4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the custodian will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the free pool for re-delegation.
Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.
One potential interpretation is that 4.3 invalidates any form of "Original" Historical Resource referred to by 5.5.2 and replaces it with some form of "Claimed" Historical Resource or "Unclaimed" Historical Resource, in which 5.5.2 is no longer relevant. In which case, there is no point in maintaining the clause, and prop-147 should address this point.
A clearer interpretation is that they are in conflict and an update to 5.5.2 is required to adopt prop-147. Updates to 5.5.1, 5.5.3 and 5.5.4 should also be considered inline with the proposed implementation.
To be clear I am generally in favour of EC 2021-09 and prop-147.
The conversation on list about the time a former historical resource spends in Reserved status is something that needs consensus, but less relevant to my concerns.
Per Vivek, the impact on Historical resources is around 625 resources or at least 160 thousand potentially active addresses on the public, operational Internet. The potential impact for innocent Internet end-points can not be understated here. I agree that this should be clearly stated under section 5, Advantages/Disadvantages and section 6, Impact on Resource Holders, and not "None".
To be able to endorse prop-147, my outstanding questions are; * Does APNIC believe they can proceed with their proposed EC 2021-09 implementation without Policy change? * Does the EC currently believe, given the current state of the HRM project, that 1-Jan-2023 is still a reasonable date to begin cutting off at least 160 thousand active endpoints from the Internet, and they take full responsibility for the outcomes if enacted? * Can the authors please address 5.5.2 and the Impact on Resource Holders assessment?
I note time is of the essence. Should prop-147 not reach consensus on this next Thursday, the next date for the Policy SIG to discuss the proposal may be Feb next year. Even if it does pass, the EC Endorsement phase is not until December giving the secretariat very little time to update and publish the new policy before proposed implementation.
Regards, Brett O'Hara FJ Networking.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 9:28 PM Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Vivek,
I 100% understand and, within reason, support the EC resolution 2021-09. I have attended many presentations on this topic and have gone through the process to acquire custodianship of my Historical Resources, and as such am not personally concerned about my situation.
I just can't see anywhere in the existing APNIC Internet Number Resources Policy that the secretariat currently has the power on the 1st of Jan 2023 to place Historical Resources advertised on the Internet into Reserved status. I may have misread or misinterpreted, and I'm happy to be proved wrong here.
Can you please advise where in the Policy APNIC is currently empowered to take this action?
Regard, Brett
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 8:35 PM Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Jordi, Aftab,
I have summarised the process APNIC uses to add/remove prefixes from APNIC AS0 ROA. This may help explain why you did not find some of the prefixes in AS0 ROA.
Once a prefix is marked as 'reserved' it is added into AS0 ROA after 7 days to cause as little disruption as possible and avoid any inadvertent actions. Where possible, we also aggregate the prefixes that are added into AS0 ROA. When a prefix is delegated to a Member, it is removed from AS0 within 5 minute window.
As per our implementation of APNIC EC resolution 2021-09, any historical resources that are not maintained under an APNIC account will be removed from whois and marked as reserved on 1 January, 2023. 7 days after that, those reserved prefixes will be added into AS0 ROA.
Thanks
Vivek
*From: *JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Date: *Wednesday, 7 September 2022 at 6:51 pm *To: *sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Question for the staff on this. Is the AS0 proposal not sufficient to comply with Aftab observation, or it is just something in the backlog of pending secretariat activities, or what is the reason for that?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30/8/22, 3:48, "Aftab Siddiqui" aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com escribió:
Hi Vivek,
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 18:15, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 TAL as a routing information service only.
https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limita...
That is incorrect, there are more than 160 IPv4 prefixes (I haven't checked v6 yet) which are marked as either "reserved" or "available" in the APNIC delegation file and they don't exist in AS-0 ROA. So there must be some policy which is in place.
delegate file: 2.3|apnic|20220830|158240||20220829|+1000
AS0 ROA: SigningTime: 2022-08-30T01:10:15Z
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Brett,
Please see my responses below.
- Does APNIC believe they can proceed with their proposed EC 2021-09 implementation without Policy change?
Yes. APNIC provides registration services to resource holders, and is entitled to impose a reasonable fee for those services. APNIC fees are a responsibility of the APNIC EC, and not a question of address policy.
In the event that registration services are withdrawn due to non-payment, affected resources will be removed from whois and reverse DNS, and designated as “reserved” in order that they are not reallocated. As a consequence of the RPKI AS0 Policy (Prop-132), reserved resources are included in the AS0 ROA.
- Does the EC currently believe, given the current state of the HRM project, that 1-Jan-2023 is still a reasonable date to begin cutting off at least 160 thousand active endpoints from the Internet, and they take full responsibility for the outcomes if enacted?
The APNIC Secretariat has advised the EC that 1 January 2023 is still a reasonable deadline, however it is possible that more time will be required to resolve some cases.
The Secretariat will take all reasonable efforts to contact each and every historical resource holder, including contact with upstream providers for resources that are routed. While those efforts are continuing for any resource, no action will be taken to reserve that resource, even after 1 January 2023. With this reasonable approach, we do not expect any adverse outcomes that should concern the APNIC EC.
Thanks Vivek
From: Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au Date: Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 8:41 pm To: Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net Cc: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management Hi All,
Just clarify what I'm asking for.
5.5.2 States; APNIC will protect all registrations of Historical Internet resources with the APNIC-HM maintainer, a practice consistent with the management of current resources.
To ensure integrity of information, APNIC will not update historical information in the APNIC Whois Database until the resource holder demonstrates the organization’s right to the resources and enters a formal agreement with APNIC either as a member account or Non-Member account. The existing 4.2.1 states;
A significant number of historical resources registered in the APNIC Whois Database are not announced to the global routing table.
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. By my interpretation, under current Policy, APNIC doesn't currently have the power to amend the whois records for Historical Resources and enact the implementation of EC 2021-09 for routed Historical Internet resources as stated by Vivek below. Also, enacting this policy against globally un-routed resources may also not be technically valid.
If this is the case, APNIC can not proceed with its implementation from 1-Jan-2023 and needs to enact a change to the APNIC Internet Number Resource Policy to achieve these outcomes.
This brings me to prop-147 which replaces 4.2.1 with;
[Add] Section 4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the custodian will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the free pool for re-delegation.
Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources. One potential interpretation is that 4.3 invalidates any form of "Original" Historical Resource referred to by 5.5.2 and replaces it with some form of "Claimed" Historical Resource or "Unclaimed" Historical Resource, in which 5.5.2 is no longer relevant. In which case, there is no point in maintaining the clause, and prop-147 should address this point.
A clearer interpretation is that they are in conflict and an update to 5.5.2 is required to adopt prop-147. Updates to 5.5.1, 5.5.3 and 5.5.4 should also be considered inline with the proposed implementation.
To be clear I am generally in favour of EC 2021-09 and prop-147.
The conversation on list about the time a former historical resource spends in Reserved status is something that needs consensus, but less relevant to my concerns.
Per Vivek, the impact on Historical resources is around 625 resources or at least 160 thousand potentially active addresses on the public, operational Internet. The potential impact for innocent Internet end-points can not be understated here. I agree that this should be clearly stated under section 5, Advantages/Disadvantages and section 6, Impact on Resource Holders, and not "None".
To be able to endorse prop-147, my outstanding questions are; * Does APNIC believe they can proceed with their proposed EC 2021-09 implementation without Policy change? * Does the EC currently believe, given the current state of the HRM project, that 1-Jan-2023 is still a reasonable date to begin cutting off at least 160 thousand active endpoints from the Internet, and they take full responsibility for the outcomes if enacted? * Can the authors please address 5.5.2 and the Impact on Resource Holders assessment?
I note time is of the essence. Should prop-147 not reach consensus on this next Thursday, the next date for the Policy SIG to discuss the proposal may be Feb next year. Even if it does pass, the EC Endorsement phase is not until December giving the secretariat very little time to update and publish the new policy before proposed implementation.
Regards, Brett O'Hara FJ Networking.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 9:28 PM Brett O'Hara <brett@fj.com.aumailto:brett@fj.com.au> wrote: Hi Vivek,
I 100% understand and, within reason, support the EC resolution 2021-09. I have attended many presentations on this topic and have gone through the process to acquire custodianship of my Historical Resources, and as such am not personally concerned about my situation.
I just can't see anywhere in the existing APNIC Internet Number Resources Policy that the secretariat currently has the power on the 1st of Jan 2023 to place Historical Resources advertised on the Internet into Reserved status. I may have misread or misinterpreted, and I'm happy to be proved wrong here.
Can you please advise where in the Policy APNIC is currently empowered to take this action?
Regard, Brett
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 8:35 PM Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.netmailto:vivek@apnic.net> wrote: Hi Jordi, Aftab,
I have summarised the process APNIC uses to add/remove prefixes from APNIC AS0 ROA. This may help explain why you did not find some of the prefixes in AS0 ROA.
Once a prefix is marked as 'reserved' it is added into AS0 ROA after 7 days to cause as little disruption as possible and avoid any inadvertent actions. Where possible, we also aggregate the prefixes that are added into AS0 ROA. When a prefix is delegated to a Member, it is removed from AS0 within 5 minute window.
As per our implementation of APNIC EC resolution 2021-09, any historical resources that are not maintained under an APNIC account will be removed from whois and marked as reserved on 1 January, 2023. 7 days after that, those reserved prefixes will be added into AS0 ROA.
Thanks Vivek
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Date: Wednesday, 7 September 2022 at 6:51 pm To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management Question for the staff on this. Is the AS0 proposal not sufficient to comply with Aftab observation, or it is just something in the backlog of pending secretariat activities, or what is the reason for that?
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 30/8/22, 3:48, "Aftab Siddiqui" <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.commailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> escribió:
Hi Vivek,
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 18:15, Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.netmailto:vivek@apnic.net> wrote: Hi Aftab,
APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 TAL as a routing information service only.
https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limita...
That is incorrect, there are more than 160 IPv4 prefixes (I haven't checked v6 yet) which are marked as either "reserved" or "available" in the APNIC delegation file and they don't exist in AS-0 ROA. So there must be some policy which is in place.
delegate file: 2.3|apnic|20220830|158240||20220829|+1000 AS0 ROA: SigningTime: 2022-08-30T01:10:15Z
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.comhttps://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ca72084d867ca44dadb2008da93e23c1d%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637984897134825363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bJwY5TWl5%2FI1IemuE%2BQ1XZ4zf1VRmix%2BpRjsUkCq0p0%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Thank you Vivek. That very clearly answers my questions.
Regards, Brett
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 3:16 PM Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Brett,
Please see my responses below.
- Does APNIC believe they can proceed with their proposed EC 2021-09
implementation without Policy change?
Yes. APNIC provides registration services to resource holders, and is entitled to impose a reasonable fee for those services. APNIC fees are a responsibility of the APNIC EC, and not a question of address policy.
In the event that registration services are withdrawn due to non-payment, affected resources will be removed from whois and reverse DNS, and designated as “reserved” in order that they are not reallocated. As a consequence of the RPKI AS0 Policy (Prop-132), reserved resources are included in the AS0 ROA.
- Does the EC currently believe, given the current state of the HRM
project, that 1-Jan-2023 is still a reasonable date to begin cutting off at least 160 thousand active endpoints from the Internet, and they take full responsibility for the outcomes if enacted?
The APNIC Secretariat has advised the EC that 1 January 2023 is still a reasonable deadline, however it is possible that more time will be required to resolve some cases.
The Secretariat will take all reasonable efforts to contact each and every historical resource holder, including contact with upstream providers for resources that are routed. While those efforts are continuing for any resource, no action will be taken to reserve that resource, even after 1 January 2023. With this reasonable approach, we do not expect any adverse outcomes that should concern the APNIC EC.
Thanks
Vivek
*From: *Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au *Date: *Sunday, 11 September 2022 at 8:41 pm *To: *Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net *Cc: *JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject: *Re: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi All,
Just clarify what I'm asking for.
5.5.2 States;
APNIC will protect all registrations of Historical Internet resources with the APNIC-HM maintainer, a practice consistent with the management of current resources.
To ensure integrity of information, APNIC will not update historical information in the APNIC Whois Database until the resource holder demonstrates the organization’s right to the resources and enters a formal agreement with APNIC either as a member account or Non-Member account.
The existing 4.2.1 states;
A significant number of historical resources registered in the APNIC Whois Database are not announced to the global routing table.
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
By my interpretation, under current Policy, APNIC doesn't currently have the power to amend the whois records for Historical Resources and enact the implementation of EC 2021-09 for routed Historical Internet resources as stated by Vivek below. Also, enacting this policy against globally un-routed resources may also not be technically valid.
If this is the case, APNIC can not proceed with its implementation from 1-Jan-2023 and needs to enact a change to the APNIC Internet Number Resource Policy to achieve these outcomes.
This brings me to prop-147 which replaces 4.2.1 with;
[Add] Section 4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the custodian will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the free pool for re-delegation.
Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.
One potential interpretation is that 4.3 invalidates any form of "Original" Historical Resource referred to by 5.5.2 and replaces it with some form of "Claimed" Historical Resource or "Unclaimed" Historical Resource, in which 5.5.2 is no longer relevant. In which case, there is no point in maintaining the clause, and prop-147 should address this point.
A clearer interpretation is that they are in conflict and an update to 5.5.2 is required to adopt prop-147. Updates to 5.5.1, 5.5.3 and 5.5.4 should also be considered inline with the proposed implementation.
To be clear I am generally in favour of EC 2021-09 and prop-147.
The conversation on list about the time a former historical resource spends in Reserved status is something that needs consensus, but less relevant to my concerns.
Per Vivek, the impact on Historical resources is around 625 resources or at least 160 thousand potentially active addresses on the public, operational Internet. The potential impact for innocent Internet end-points can not be understated here. I agree that this should be clearly stated under section 5, Advantages/Disadvantages and section 6, Impact on Resource Holders, and not "None".
To be able to endorse prop-147, my outstanding questions are;
- Does APNIC believe they can proceed with their proposed EC 2021-09
implementation without Policy change?
- Does the EC currently believe, given the current state of the HRM
project, that 1-Jan-2023 is still a reasonable date to begin cutting off at least 160 thousand active endpoints from the Internet, and they take full responsibility for the outcomes if enacted?
- Can the authors please address 5.5.2 and the Impact on Resource Holders
assessment?
I note time is of the essence. Should prop-147 not reach consensus on this next Thursday, the next date for the Policy SIG to discuss the proposal may be Feb next year. Even if it does pass, the EC Endorsement phase is not until December giving the secretariat very little time to update and publish the new policy before proposed implementation.
Regards,
Brett O'Hara
FJ Networking.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 9:28 PM Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Vivek,
I 100% understand and, within reason, support the EC resolution 2021-09. I have attended many presentations on this topic and have gone through the process to acquire custodianship of my Historical Resources, and as such am not personally concerned about my situation.
I just can't see anywhere in the existing APNIC Internet Number Resources Policy that the secretariat currently has the power on the 1st of Jan 2023 to place Historical Resources advertised on the Internet into Reserved status. I may have misread or misinterpreted, and I'm happy to be proved wrong here.
Can you please advise where in the Policy APNIC is currently empowered to take this action?
Regard,
BrettOn Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 8:35 PM Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Jordi, Aftab,
I have summarised the process APNIC uses to add/remove prefixes from APNIC AS0 ROA. This may help explain why you did not find some of the prefixes in AS0 ROA.
Once a prefix is marked as 'reserved' it is added into AS0 ROA after 7 days to cause as little disruption as possible and avoid any inadvertent actions. Where possible, we also aggregate the prefixes that are added into AS0 ROA. When a prefix is delegated to a Member, it is removed from AS0 within 5 minute window.
As per our implementation of APNIC EC resolution 2021-09, any historical resources that are not maintained under an APNIC account will be removed from whois and marked as reserved on 1 January, 2023. 7 days after that, those reserved prefixes will be added into AS0 ROA.
Thanks
Vivek
*From: *JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Date: *Wednesday, 7 September 2022 at 6:51 pm *To: *sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Question for the staff on this. Is the AS0 proposal not sufficient to comply with Aftab observation, or it is just something in the backlog of pending secretariat activities, or what is the reason for that?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30/8/22, 3:48, "Aftab Siddiqui" aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com escribió:
Hi Vivek,
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 18:15, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 TAL as a routing information service only.
https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limita...
That is incorrect, there are more than 160 IPv4 prefixes (I haven't checked v6 yet) which are marked as either "reserved" or "available" in the APNIC delegation file and they don't exist in AS-0 ROA. So there must be some policy which is in place.
delegate file: 2.3|apnic|20220830|158240||20220829|+1000
AS0 ROA: SigningTime: 2022-08-30T01:10:15Z
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ca72084d867ca44dadb2008da93e23c1d%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637984897134825363%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bJwY5TWl5%2FI1IemuE%2BQ1XZ4zf1VRmix%2BpRjsUkCq0p0%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Brett,
In my opinion some of the points that you mention about section 5 could make sense, however, they are not issues “created” because the proposal, but in fact, because the EC took a decision bypassing the community.
We should fix that, and the timing is the problem. I feel difficult to properly address this in the proposal tonight (which is the dead-line for sending a new version), considering the time zone difference … An option can be to send an additional proposal to fix the complete section 5 in the next few weeks if prop-147 reach consensus. I don’t think they are in conflict if you take into account the EC decision.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 11/9/22, 12:41, "Brett O'Hara" brett@fj.com.au escribió:
Hi All,
Just clarify what I'm asking for.
5.5.2 States;
APNIC will protect all registrations of Historical Internet resources with the APNIC-HM maintainer, a practice consistent with the management of current resources.
To ensure integrity of information, APNIC will not update historical information in the APNIC Whois Database until the resource holder demonstrates the organization’s right to the resources and enters a formal agreement with APNIC either as a member account or Non-Member account.
The existing 4.2.1 states;
A significant number of historical resources registered in the APNIC Whois Database are not announced to the global routing table.
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
By my interpretation, under current Policy, APNIC doesn't currently have the power to amend the whois records for Historical Resources and enact the implementation of EC 2021-09 for routed Historical Internet resources as stated by Vivek below. Also, enacting this policy against globally un-routed resources may also not be technically valid.
If this is the case, APNIC can not proceed with its implementation from 1-Jan-2023 and needs to enact a change to the APNIC Internet Number Resource Policy to achieve these outcomes.
This brings me to prop-147 which replaces 4.2.1 with;
[Add] Section 4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the custodian will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the free pool for re-delegation.
Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.
One potential interpretation is that 4.3 invalidates any form of "Original" Historical Resource referred to by 5.5.2 and replaces it with some form of "Claimed" Historical Resource or "Unclaimed" Historical Resource, in which 5.5.2 is no longer relevant. In which case, there is no point in maintaining the clause, and prop-147 should address this point.
A clearer interpretation is that they are in conflict and an update to 5.5.2 is required to adopt prop-147. Updates to 5.5.1, 5.5.3 and 5.5.4 should also be considered inline with the proposed implementation.
To be clear I am generally in favour of EC 2021-09 and prop-147.
The conversation on list about the time a former historical resource spends in Reserved status is something that needs consensus, but less relevant to my concerns.
Per Vivek, the impact on Historical resources is around 625 resources or at least 160 thousand potentially active addresses on the public, operational Internet. The potential impact for innocent Internet end-points can not be understated here. I agree that this should be clearly stated under section 5, Advantages/Disadvantages and section 6, Impact on Resource Holders, and not "None".
To be able to endorse prop-147, my outstanding questions are;
* Does APNIC believe they can proceed with their proposed EC 2021-09 implementation without Policy change?
* Does the EC currently believe, given the current state of the HRM project, that 1-Jan-2023 is still a reasonable date to begin cutting off at least 160 thousand active endpoints from the Internet, and they take full responsibility for the outcomes if enacted?
* Can the authors please address 5.5.2 and the Impact on Resource Holders assessment?
I note time is of the essence. Should prop-147 not reach consensus on this next Thursday, the next date for the Policy SIG to discuss the proposal may be Feb next year. Even if it does pass, the EC Endorsement phase is not until December giving the secretariat very little time to update and publish the new policy before proposed implementation.
Regards,
Brett O'Hara
FJ Networking.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 9:28 PM Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Vivek,
I 100% understand and, within reason, support the EC resolution 2021-09. I have attended many presentations on this topic and have gone through the process to acquire custodianship of my Historical Resources, and as such am not personally concerned about my situation.
I just can't see anywhere in the existing APNIC Internet Number Resources Policy that the secretariat currently has the power on the 1st of Jan 2023 to place Historical Resources advertised on the Internet into Reserved status. I may have misread or misinterpreted, and I'm happy to be proved wrong here.
Can you please advise where in the Policy APNIC is currently empowered to take this action?
Regard,
Brett
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 8:35 PM Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Jordi, Aftab,
I have summarised the process APNIC uses to add/remove prefixes from APNIC AS0 ROA. This may help explain why you did not find some of the prefixes in AS0 ROA.
Once a prefix is marked as 'reserved' it is added into AS0 ROA after 7 days to cause as little disruption as possible and avoid any inadvertent actions. Where possible, we also aggregate the prefixes that are added into AS0 ROA. When a prefix is delegated to a Member, it is removed from AS0 within 5 minute window.
As per our implementation of APNIC EC resolution 2021-09, any historical resources that are not maintained under an APNIC account will be removed from whois and marked as reserved on 1 January, 2023. 7 days after that, those reserved prefixes will be added into AS0 ROA.
Thanks
Vivek
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Date: Wednesday, 7 September 2022 at 6:51 pm To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Question for the staff on this. Is the AS0 proposal not sufficient to comply with Aftab observation, or it is just something in the backlog of pending secretariat activities, or what is the reason for that?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30/8/22, 3:48, "Aftab Siddiqui" aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com escribió:
Hi Vivek,
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 18:15, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
APNIC creates RPKI ROAs with origin AS0 for all undelegated address space (marked as “Available” and “Reserved” in the delegated-apnic-extended-latest stats file. It may be worth noting that APNIC publishes these AS0 ROAs in a different Trust Anchor (AS0 TAL) and recommends its Members use APNIC AS0 TAL as a routing information service only.
https://www.apnic.net/community/security/resource-certification/apnic-limita...
That is incorrect, there are more than 160 IPv4 prefixes (I haven't checked v6 yet) which are marked as either "reserved" or "available" in the APNIC delegation file and they don't exist in AS-0 ROA. So there must be some policy which is in place.
delegate file: 2.3|apnic|20220830|158240||20220829|+1000
AS0 ROA: SigningTime: 2022-08-30T01:10:15Z
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Aftab,
Would you agree extending the 12 months into 18 months?
Or maybe an alternative text to the proposal offering a different solution, may be 2 different stages in the process, I don’t know, just thinking loud.
The point here is: We do nothing: all those resources are in reserved state (no services), instead of some of them being able to be reused by members/newcomers. We act now: Slowly, some resources will be back to the community in the next 12 months, or original custodians will become “visible”.
I really think option 2 is better. I fail to understand why you don’t think so. If the problem is the timing let’s talk about a longer period instead of 12 months. Or let’s consider other alternatives. We know that the community will not discuss this anymore for the next 6 months, until the next meeting is closer. Why we don’t try to fix it now?
I can’t believe that we get stuck into option 1, enforced by the EC.
To be honest, I disagree with the EC decision on this. It would have been much better to have a community decision *before* an enforced EC decision. I actually summited a proposal about that whay ahead the EC decision, but the chairs decided not to accept it. I think the chairs erred with that. The community is on top of the EC decisions and knowing that the EC was already working on that, was not an excuse for anyone to avoid the community acting.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 27/8/22, 6:31, "Aftab Siddiqui" aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com escribió:
Hi Jordi,
I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi,
For now, so believe that option 1 you indicated is better. I think we may be in a better place to decide option 2 is better in 12 months.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef ________________________________ From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 6:43:22 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Aftab,
Would you agree extending the 12 months into 18 months?
Or maybe an alternative text to the proposal offering a different solution, may be 2 different stages in the process, I don’t know, just thinking loud.
The point here is:
1. We do nothing: all those resources are in reserved state (no services), instead of some of them being able to be reused by members/newcomers. 2. We act now: Slowly, some resources will be back to the community in the next 12 months, or original custodians will become “visible”.
I really think option 2 is better. I fail to understand why you don’t think so. If the problem is the timing let’s talk about a longer period instead of 12 months. Or let’s consider other alternatives. We know that the community will not discuss this anymore for the next 6 months, until the next meeting is closer. Why we don’t try to fix it now?
I can’t believe that we get stuck into option 1, enforced by the EC.
To be honest, I disagree with the EC decision on this. It would have been much better to have a community decision *before* an enforced EC decision. I actually summited a proposal about that whay ahead the EC decision, but the chairs decided not to accept it. I think the chairs erred with that. The community is on top of the EC decisions and knowing that the EC was already working on that, was not an excuse for anyone to avoid the community acting.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 27/8/22, 6:31, "Aftab Siddiqui" <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.commailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> escribió:
Hi Jordi,
I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara <brett@fj.com.aumailto:brett@fj.com.au> wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.aumailto:andrew@rwts.com.au> escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.netmailto:vivek@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.netmailto:sunny@apnic.net> Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager <andrew@rwts.com.aumailto:andrew@rwts.com.au>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.esmailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.netmailto:sunny@apnic.net> escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupammailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.commailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
None.
_______________________________________________
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.comhttps://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
I fail to understand why taking already the decision of what to do, like in option 2, should be delayed, if we already agree that 12 months is a good timing.
The PDP allows us to amend the policy text if we need to extend this timing or do something else, but I always believe that acting now is better than late, and having a strict deadline for not just January 1st, but also one year later, will help to enforce the custodians to react, and ensure that APNIC also request more resrouces (if needed) to finalize the job.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 10:51, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
For now, so believe that option 1 you indicated is better. I think we may be in a better place to decide option 2 is better in 12 months.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 6:43:22 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Aftab,
Would you agree extending the 12 months into 18 months?
Or maybe an alternative text to the proposal offering a different solution, may be 2 different stages in the process, I don’t know, just thinking loud.
The point here is:
1. We do nothing: all those resources are in reserved state (no services), instead of some of them being able to be reused by members/newcomers.
2. We act now: Slowly, some resources will be back to the community in the next 12 months, or original custodians will become “visible”.
I really think option 2 is better. I fail to understand why you don’t think so. If the problem is the timing let’s talk about a longer period instead of 12 months. Or let’s consider other alternatives. We know that the community will not discuss this anymore for the next 6 months, until the next meeting is closer. Why we don’t try to fix it now?
I can’t believe that we get stuck into option 1, enforced by the EC.
To be honest, I disagree with the EC decision on this. It would have been much better to have a community decision *before* an enforced EC decision. I actually summited a proposal about that whay ahead the EC decision, but the chairs decided not to accept it. I think the chairs erred with that. The community is on top of the EC decisions and knowing that the EC was already working on that, was not an excuse for anyone to avoid the community acting.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 27/8/22, 6:31, "Aftab Siddiqui" aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com escribió:
Hi Jordi,
I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
The problem remains that regardless of what the decisions of the EC are, these resources are still by and large present in the global routing table.
A decision to reclaim and reissue is impractical, and also impacts the stability of the internet.
While the EC made a decision that lists these resources in AS0; it would be far more problematic to assume that by users of these resources are in fact available to reissue at this time, and I remain unconvinced that 12 months is the right timeframe. Perhaps we will be in a better position to evaluate this in 12 months time and then set a timeframe.
If this policy is to go be approved (which I still don’t agree with) I would at it at 36-60 months is more practical.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef ________________________________ From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 7:02:10 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
I fail to understand why taking already the decision of what to do, like in option 2, should be delayed, if we already agree that 12 months is a good timing.
The PDP allows us to amend the policy text if we need to extend this timing or do something else, but I always believe that acting now is better than late, and having a strict deadline for not just January 1st, but also one year later, will help to enforce the custodians to react, and ensure that APNIC also request more resrouces (if needed) to finalize the job.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 10:51, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.aumailto:andrew@rwts.com.au> escribió:
Hi,
For now, so believe that option 1 you indicated is better. I think we may be in a better place to decide option 2 is better in 12 months.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef
________________________________
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 6:43:22 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Aftab,
Would you agree extending the 12 months into 18 months?
Or maybe an alternative text to the proposal offering a different solution, may be 2 different stages in the process, I don’t know, just thinking loud.
The point here is:
1. We do nothing: all those resources are in reserved state (no services), instead of some of them being able to be reused by members/newcomers.
2. We act now: Slowly, some resources will be back to the community in the next 12 months, or original custodians will become “visible”.
I really think option 2 is better. I fail to understand why you don’t think so. If the problem is the timing let’s talk about a longer period instead of 12 months. Or let’s consider other alternatives. We know that the community will not discuss this anymore for the next 6 months, until the next meeting is closer. Why we don’t try to fix it now?
I can’t believe that we get stuck into option 1, enforced by the EC.
To be honest, I disagree with the EC decision on this. It would have been much better to have a community decision *before* an enforced EC decision. I actually summited a proposal about that whay ahead the EC decision, but the chairs decided not to accept it. I think the chairs erred with that. The community is on top of the EC decisions and knowing that the EC was already working on that, was not an excuse for anyone to avoid the community acting.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 27/8/22, 6:31, "Aftab Siddiqui" <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.commailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> escribió:
Hi Jordi,
I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara <brett@fj.com.aumailto:brett@fj.com.au> wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.aumailto:andrew@rwts.com.au> escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.netmailto:vivek@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.netmailto:sunny@apnic.net> Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager <andrew@rwts.com.aumailto:andrew@rwts.com.au>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.esmailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.netmailto:sunny@apnic.net> escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupammailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.commailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
None.
_______________________________________________
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.comhttps://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Considering that the EC decision is going to affect the resources on January 1st, I think waiting so long as you suggest 3-5 years, is not very sensible. Waste of resources, why even waste time for the staff to contact holders anymore?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 11:43, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
The problem remains that regardless of what the decisions of the EC are, these resources are still by and large present in the global routing table.
A decision to reclaim and reissue is impractical, and also impacts the stability of the internet.
While the EC made a decision that lists these resources in AS0; it would be far more problematic to assume that by users of these resources are in fact available to reissue at this time, and I remain unconvinced that 12 months is the right timeframe. Perhaps we will be in a better position to evaluate this in 12 months time and then set a timeframe.
If this policy is to go be approved (which I still don’t agree with) I would at it at 36-60 months is more practical.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 7:02:10 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
I fail to understand why taking already the decision of what to do, like in option 2, should be delayed, if we already agree that 12 months is a good timing.
The PDP allows us to amend the policy text if we need to extend this timing or do something else, but I always believe that acting now is better than late, and having a strict deadline for not just January 1st, but also one year later, will help to enforce the custodians to react, and ensure that APNIC also request more resrouces (if needed) to finalize the job.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 10:51, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
For now, so believe that option 1 you indicated is better. I think we may be in a better place to decide option 2 is better in 12 months.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 6:43:22 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Aftab,
Would you agree extending the 12 months into 18 months?
Or maybe an alternative text to the proposal offering a different solution, may be 2 different stages in the process, I don’t know, just thinking loud.
The point here is:
1. We do nothing: all those resources are in reserved state (no services), instead of some of them being able to be reused by members/newcomers.
2. We act now: Slowly, some resources will be back to the community in the next 12 months, or original custodians will become “visible”.
I really think option 2 is better. I fail to understand why you don’t think so. If the problem is the timing let’s talk about a longer period instead of 12 months. Or let’s consider other alternatives. We know that the community will not discuss this anymore for the next 6 months, until the next meeting is closer. Why we don’t try to fix it now?
I can’t believe that we get stuck into option 1, enforced by the EC.
To be honest, I disagree with the EC decision on this. It would have been much better to have a community decision *before* an enforced EC decision. I actually summited a proposal about that whay ahead the EC decision, but the chairs decided not to accept it. I think the chairs erred with that. The community is on top of the EC decisions and knowing that the EC was already working on that, was not an excuse for anyone to avoid the community acting.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 27/8/22, 6:31, "Aftab Siddiqui" aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com escribió:
Hi Jordi,
I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Simply because almost no network implements AS-0 blocking due to the issues with it.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef ________________________________ From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:09:06 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Considering that the EC decision is going to affect the resources on January 1st, I think waiting so long as you suggest 3-5 years, is not very sensible. Waste of resources, why even waste time for the staff to contact holders anymore?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 11:43, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.aumailto:andrew@rwts.com.au> escribió:
The problem remains that regardless of what the decisions of the EC are, these resources are still by and large present in the global routing table.
A decision to reclaim and reissue is impractical, and also impacts the stability of the internet.
While the EC made a decision that lists these resources in AS0; it would be far more problematic to assume that by users of these resources are in fact available to reissue at this time, and I remain unconvinced that 12 months is the right timeframe. Perhaps we will be in a better position to evaluate this in 12 months time and then set a timeframe.
If this policy is to go be approved (which I still don’t agree with) I would at it at 36-60 months is more practical.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef
________________________________
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 7:02:10 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
I fail to understand why taking already the decision of what to do, like in option 2, should be delayed, if we already agree that 12 months is a good timing.
The PDP allows us to amend the policy text if we need to extend this timing or do something else, but I always believe that acting now is better than late, and having a strict deadline for not just January 1st, but also one year later, will help to enforce the custodians to react, and ensure that APNIC also request more resrouces (if needed) to finalize the job.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 10:51, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.aumailto:andrew@rwts.com.au> escribió:
Hi,
For now, so believe that option 1 you indicated is better. I think we may be in a better place to decide option 2 is better in 12 months.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOShttps://aka.ms/o0ukef
________________________________
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 6:43:22 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Aftab,
Would you agree extending the 12 months into 18 months?
Or maybe an alternative text to the proposal offering a different solution, may be 2 different stages in the process, I don’t know, just thinking loud.
The point here is:
1. We do nothing: all those resources are in reserved state (no services), instead of some of them being able to be reused by members/newcomers.
2. We act now: Slowly, some resources will be back to the community in the next 12 months, or original custodians will become “visible”.
I really think option 2 is better. I fail to understand why you don’t think so. If the problem is the timing let’s talk about a longer period instead of 12 months. Or let’s consider other alternatives. We know that the community will not discuss this anymore for the next 6 months, until the next meeting is closer. Why we don’t try to fix it now?
I can’t believe that we get stuck into option 1, enforced by the EC.
To be honest, I disagree with the EC decision on this. It would have been much better to have a community decision *before* an enforced EC decision. I actually summited a proposal about that whay ahead the EC decision, but the chairs decided not to accept it. I think the chairs erred with that. The community is on top of the EC decisions and knowing that the EC was already working on that, was not an excuse for anyone to avoid the community acting.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 27/8/22, 6:31, "Aftab Siddiqui" <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.commailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> escribió:
Hi Jordi,
I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara <brett@fj.com.aumailto:brett@fj.com.au> wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.aumailto:andrew@rwts.com.au> escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.netmailto:vivek@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.netmailto:sunny@apnic.net> Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager <andrew@rwts.com.aumailto:andrew@rwts.com.au>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.esmailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.netmailto:sunny@apnic.net> escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupammailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.commailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
None.
_______________________________________________
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.comhttps://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Jordi,
I'm not sure that everyone here understands. I don't think that the secretariat actually can, under the current Policy, AS0 legacy addresses on the proposed date. Unless a policy like yours or similar is passed, the EC cannot actually enact resolution 2021-09. I find it very concerning for APNIC governance and for members that there is no published policy on this topic.
What I believe is required before considering the support of your proposition is the EC's assurance, considering the slow progress of the HRM project, that they still back the proposed date and they take full responsibility for the outcomes. The details of your proposal could then be considered.
This would be the appropriate due diligence of the Policy SIG.
Regards, Brett
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 8:13 PM Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au wrote:
Simply because almost no network implements AS-0 blocking due to the issues with it.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS https://aka.ms/o0ukef
*From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:09:06 PM *To:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Considering that the EC decision is going to affect the resources on January 1st, I think waiting so long as you suggest 3-5 years, is not very sensible. Waste of resources, why even waste time for the staff to contact holders anymore?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 11:43, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
The problem remains that regardless of what the decisions of the EC are, these resources are still by and large present in the global routing table.
A decision to reclaim and reissue is impractical, and also impacts the stability of the internet.
While the EC made a decision that lists these resources in AS0; it would be far more problematic to assume that by users of these resources are in fact available to reissue at this time, and I remain unconvinced that 12 months is the right timeframe. Perhaps we will be in a better position to evaluate this in 12 months time and then set a timeframe.
If this policy is to go be approved (which I still don’t agree with) I would at it at 36-60 months is more practical.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS https://aka.ms/o0ukef
*From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 7:02:10 PM *To:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
I fail to understand why taking already the decision of what to do, like in option 2, should be delayed, if we already agree that 12 months is a good timing.
The PDP allows us to amend the policy text if we need to extend this timing or do something else, but I always believe that acting now is better than late, and having a strict deadline for not just January 1st, but also one year later, will help to enforce the custodians to react, and ensure that APNIC also request more resrouces (if needed) to finalize the job.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 10:51, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
For now, so believe that option 1 you indicated is better. I think we may be in a better place to decide option 2 is better in 12 months.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS https://aka.ms/o0ukef
*From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 6:43:22 PM *To:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Aftab,
Would you agree extending the 12 months into 18 months?
Or maybe an alternative text to the proposal offering a different solution, may be 2 different stages in the process, I don’t know, just thinking loud.
The point here is:
We do nothing: all those resources are in reserved state (noservices), instead of some of them being able to be reused by members/newcomers.
We act now: Slowly, some resources will be back to the communityin the next 12 months, or original custodians will become “visible”.
I really think option 2 is better. I fail to understand why you don’t think so. If the problem is the timing let’s talk about a longer period instead of 12 months. Or let’s consider other alternatives. We know that the community will not discuss this anymore for the next 6 months, until the next meeting is closer. Why we don’t try to fix it now?
I can’t believe that we get stuck into option 1, enforced by the EC.
To be honest, I disagree with the EC decision on this. It would have been much better to have a community decision **before** an enforced EC decision. I actually summited a proposal about that whay ahead the EC decision, but the chairs decided not to accept it. I think the chairs erred with that. The community is on top of the EC decisions and knowing that the EC was already working on that, was not an excuse for anyone to avoid the community acting.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 27/8/22, 6:31, "Aftab Siddiqui" aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com escribió:
Hi Jordi,
I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
BrettOn Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in
the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not
successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
*From: *Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net *Date: *Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm *To: *Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < jordi.palet@consulintel.es> *Cc: *sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
*Recommendations:*
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
*Clarification:*
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We 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-147Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
- Objective of policy change
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
- Situation in other regions
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
- Proposed policy solution
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi All,
The policy text states:
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None. 6. Impact on resource holders
None.
I would conjecture that based on the discussions in this list:
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------- Advantages Returning resources to RIR for reallocation providing a temporary additional number of IPv4 resources to be allocated in the future Disadvantages Currently routed IP space within the global table will be potentially allocated to new resource holders who will be unable to utilise them Existing valid unsigned routes will be mandated to be added to the AS0 space Legitimate users of resources space that have not yet justified to APNICs satisfaction their historical ownership of resources they utilise will not be able continue to use resources Global internet stability will be affected
6. Impact on resource holders ------------ Resource holders who have been unable to satisfy APNIC's tests for historical resource ownership will be impacted with their routes. Noting that this is a direct consequence of the EC policy regarding historical AUNIC resources. Internet routes which are valid as at 12/2022 may be hijacked by new assigned resource owners in the future
--
I continue to assert that there are too many issues with this current policy proposal and the impact of it is too broad. While the goal of returning resources to the APNIC free pool is admirable, I cannot see it realistically achieving its stated aims.
As a concession, some alternate wording that considered whether a prefix needed to be removed from the global table for a period, say 36 months, before entering quarantine, and then returning to the free pool may be a compromise - but without some specific wording considered I could not comment on whether this would address my concerns.
At this point I remain opposed to this policy and do not believe it should be granted consensus and proceed.
Andrew
On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 22:12, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Jordi,
I'm not sure that everyone here understands. I don't think that the secretariat actually can, under the current Policy, AS0 legacy addresses on the proposed date. Unless a policy like yours or similar is passed, the EC cannot actually enact resolution 2021-09. I find it very concerning for APNIC governance and for members that there is no published policy on this topic.
What I believe is required before considering the support of your proposition is the EC's assurance, considering the slow progress of the HRM project, that they still back the proposed date and they take full responsibility for the outcomes. The details of your proposal could then be considered.
This would be the appropriate due diligence of the Policy SIG.
Regards, Brett
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 8:13 PM Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au wrote:
Simply because almost no network implements AS-0 blocking due to the issues with it.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS https://aka.ms/o0ukef
*From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:09:06 PM *To:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Considering that the EC decision is going to affect the resources on January 1st, I think waiting so long as you suggest 3-5 years, is not very sensible. Waste of resources, why even waste time for the staff to contact holders anymore?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 11:43, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
The problem remains that regardless of what the decisions of the EC are, these resources are still by and large present in the global routing table.
A decision to reclaim and reissue is impractical, and also impacts the stability of the internet.
While the EC made a decision that lists these resources in AS0; it would be far more problematic to assume that by users of these resources are in fact available to reissue at this time, and I remain unconvinced that 12 months is the right timeframe. Perhaps we will be in a better position to evaluate this in 12 months time and then set a timeframe.
If this policy is to go be approved (which I still don’t agree with) I would at it at 36-60 months is more practical.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS https://aka.ms/o0ukef
*From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 7:02:10 PM *To:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
I fail to understand why taking already the decision of what to do, like in option 2, should be delayed, if we already agree that 12 months is a good timing.
The PDP allows us to amend the policy text if we need to extend this timing or do something else, but I always believe that acting now is better than late, and having a strict deadline for not just January 1st, but also one year later, will help to enforce the custodians to react, and ensure that APNIC also request more resrouces (if needed) to finalize the job.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 10:51, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
For now, so believe that option 1 you indicated is better. I think we may be in a better place to decide option 2 is better in 12 months.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS https://aka.ms/o0ukef
*From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 6:43:22 PM *To:* sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Aftab,
Would you agree extending the 12 months into 18 months?
Or maybe an alternative text to the proposal offering a different solution, may be 2 different stages in the process, I don’t know, just thinking loud.
The point here is:
We do nothing: all those resources are in reserved state (noservices), instead of some of them being able to be reused by members/newcomers.
We act now: Slowly, some resources will be back to thecommunity in the next 12 months, or original custodians will become “visible”.
I really think option 2 is better. I fail to understand why you don’t think so. If the problem is the timing let’s talk about a longer period instead of 12 months. Or let’s consider other alternatives. We know that the community will not discuss this anymore for the next 6 months, until the next meeting is closer. Why we don’t try to fix it now?
I can’t believe that we get stuck into option 1, enforced by the EC.
To be honest, I disagree with the EC decision on this. It would have been much better to have a community decision **before** an enforced EC decision. I actually summited a proposal about that whay ahead the EC decision, but the chairs decided not to accept it. I think the chairs erred with that. The community is on top of the EC decisions and knowing that the EC was already working on that, was not an excuse for anyone to avoid the community acting.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 27/8/22, 6:31, "Aftab Siddiqui" aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com escribió:
Hi Jordi,
I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
BrettOn Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in
the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but
not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
*From: *Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net *Date: *Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm *To: *Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < jordi.palet@consulintel.es> *Cc: *sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
*Recommendations:*
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
*Clarification:*
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We 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-147Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
- Objective of policy change
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
- Situation in other regions
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
- Proposed policy solution
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Andrew,
Sorry missed this email before.
The disadvantages and the impact on resources holders that you mention are not, in my opinion, *because* this proposal but instead because the EC decision. Those will happen even if the proposal doesn’t reach consensus.
Would you agree with that conclusion?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 22:52, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi All,
The policy text states:
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
I would conjecture that based on the discussions in this list:
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
----------------- Advantages
Returning resources to RIR for reallocation providing a temporary additional number of IPv4 resources to be allocated in the future
Disadvantages
Currently routed IP space within the global table will be potentially allocated to new resource holders who will be unable to utilise them
Existing valid unsigned routes will be mandated to be added to the AS0 space
Legitimate users of resources space that have not yet justified to APNICs satisfaction their historical ownership of resources they utilise will not be able continue to use resources
Global internet stability will be affected
6. Impact on resource holders
------------
Resource holders who have been unable to satisfy APNIC's tests for historical resource ownership will be impacted with their routes. Noting that this is a direct consequence of the EC policy regarding historical AUNIC resources.
Internet routes which are valid as at 12/2022 may be hijacked by new assigned resource owners in the future
--
I continue to assert that there are too many issues with this current policy proposal and the impact of it is too broad. While the goal of returning resources to the APNIC free pool is admirable, I cannot see it realistically achieving its stated aims.
As a concession, some alternate wording that considered whether a prefix needed to be removed from the global table for a period, say 36 months, before entering quarantine, and then returning to the free pool may be a compromise - but without some specific wording considered I could not comment on whether this would address my concerns.
At this point I remain opposed to this policy and do not believe it should be granted consensus and proceed.
Andrew
On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 22:12, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Jordi,
I'm not sure that everyone here understands. I don't think that the secretariat actually can, under the current Policy, AS0 legacy addresses on the proposed date. Unless a policy like yours or similar is passed, the EC cannot actually enact resolution 2021-09. I find it very concerning for APNIC governance and for members that there is no published policy on this topic.
What I believe is required before considering the support of your proposition is the EC's assurance, considering the slow progress of the HRM project, that they still back the proposed date and they take full responsibility for the outcomes. The details of your proposal could then be considered.
This would be the appropriate due diligence of the Policy SIG.
Regards,
Brett
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 8:13 PM Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au wrote:
Simply because almost no network implements AS-0 blocking due to the issues with it.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:09:06 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Considering that the EC decision is going to affect the resources on January 1st, I think waiting so long as you suggest 3-5 years, is not very sensible. Waste of resources, why even waste time for the staff to contact holders anymore?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 11:43, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
The problem remains that regardless of what the decisions of the EC are, these resources are still by and large present in the global routing table.
A decision to reclaim and reissue is impractical, and also impacts the stability of the internet.
While the EC made a decision that lists these resources in AS0; it would be far more problematic to assume that by users of these resources are in fact available to reissue at this time, and I remain unconvinced that 12 months is the right timeframe. Perhaps we will be in a better position to evaluate this in 12 months time and then set a timeframe.
If this policy is to go be approved (which I still don’t agree with) I would at it at 36-60 months is more practical.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 7:02:10 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
I fail to understand why taking already the decision of what to do, like in option 2, should be delayed, if we already agree that 12 months is a good timing.
The PDP allows us to amend the policy text if we need to extend this timing or do something else, but I always believe that acting now is better than late, and having a strict deadline for not just January 1st, but also one year later, will help to enforce the custodians to react, and ensure that APNIC also request more resrouces (if needed) to finalize the job.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 10:51, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
For now, so believe that option 1 you indicated is better. I think we may be in a better place to decide option 2 is better in 12 months.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 6:43:22 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Aftab,
Would you agree extending the 12 months into 18 months?
Or maybe an alternative text to the proposal offering a different solution, may be 2 different stages in the process, I don’t know, just thinking loud.
The point here is:
1. We do nothing: all those resources are in reserved state (no services), instead of some of them being able to be reused by members/newcomers.
2. We act now: Slowly, some resources will be back to the community in the next 12 months, or original custodians will become “visible”.
I really think option 2 is better. I fail to understand why you don’t think so. If the problem is the timing let’s talk about a longer period instead of 12 months. Or let’s consider other alternatives. We know that the community will not discuss this anymore for the next 6 months, until the next meeting is closer. Why we don’t try to fix it now?
I can’t believe that we get stuck into option 1, enforced by the EC.
To be honest, I disagree with the EC decision on this. It would have been much better to have a community decision *before* an enforced EC decision. I actually summited a proposal about that whay ahead the EC decision, but the chairs decided not to accept it. I think the chairs erred with that. The community is on top of the EC decisions and knowing that the EC was already working on that, was not an excuse for anyone to avoid the community acting.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 27/8/22, 6:31, "Aftab Siddiqui" aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com escribió:
Hi Jordi,
I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
I will be nice to have a clear answer on those points from the secretariat!
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 14:13, "Brett O'Hara" brett@fj.com.au escribió:
Jordi,
I'm not sure that everyone here understands. I don't think that the secretariat actually can, under the current Policy, AS0 legacy addresses on the proposed date. Unless a policy like yours or similar is passed, the EC cannot actually enact resolution 2021-09. I find it very concerning for APNIC governance and for members that there is no published policy on this topic.
What I believe is required before considering the support of your proposition is the EC's assurance, considering the slow progress of the HRM project, that they still back the proposed date and they take full responsibility for the outcomes. The details of your proposal could then be considered.
This would be the appropriate due diligence of the Policy SIG.
Regards,
Brett
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 8:13 PM Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au wrote:
Simply because almost no network implements AS-0 blocking due to the issues with it.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 8:09:06 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Considering that the EC decision is going to affect the resources on January 1st, I think waiting so long as you suggest 3-5 years, is not very sensible. Waste of resources, why even waste time for the staff to contact holders anymore?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 11:43, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
The problem remains that regardless of what the decisions of the EC are, these resources are still by and large present in the global routing table.
A decision to reclaim and reissue is impractical, and also impacts the stability of the internet.
While the EC made a decision that lists these resources in AS0; it would be far more problematic to assume that by users of these resources are in fact available to reissue at this time, and I remain unconvinced that 12 months is the right timeframe. Perhaps we will be in a better position to evaluate this in 12 months time and then set a timeframe.
If this policy is to go be approved (which I still don’t agree with) I would at it at 36-60 months is more practical.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 7:02:10 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
I fail to understand why taking already the decision of what to do, like in option 2, should be delayed, if we already agree that 12 months is a good timing.
The PDP allows us to amend the policy text if we need to extend this timing or do something else, but I always believe that acting now is better than late, and having a strict deadline for not just January 1st, but also one year later, will help to enforce the custodians to react, and ensure that APNIC also request more resrouces (if needed) to finalize the job.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 7/9/22, 10:51, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
For now, so believe that option 1 you indicated is better. I think we may be in a better place to decide option 2 is better in 12 months.
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 6:43:22 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Aftab,
Would you agree extending the 12 months into 18 months?
Or maybe an alternative text to the proposal offering a different solution, may be 2 different stages in the process, I don’t know, just thinking loud.
The point here is:
1. We do nothing: all those resources are in reserved state (no services), instead of some of them being able to be reused by members/newcomers.
2. We act now: Slowly, some resources will be back to the community in the next 12 months, or original custodians will become “visible”.
I really think option 2 is better. I fail to understand why you don’t think so. If the problem is the timing let’s talk about a longer period instead of 12 months. Or let’s consider other alternatives. We know that the community will not discuss this anymore for the next 6 months, until the next meeting is closer. Why we don’t try to fix it now?
I can’t believe that we get stuck into option 1, enforced by the EC.
To be honest, I disagree with the EC decision on this. It would have been much better to have a community decision *before* an enforced EC decision. I actually summited a proposal about that whay ahead the EC decision, but the chairs decided not to accept it. I think the chairs erred with that. The community is on top of the EC decisions and knowing that the EC was already working on that, was not an excuse for anyone to avoid the community acting.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 27/8/22, 6:31, "Aftab Siddiqui" aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com escribió:
Hi Jordi,
I absolutely concur with Brett and Andrew, they have already mentioned the reasoning very clearly. I don't support this policy right now and maybe we can review the status in 12 months and have another constructive discussion.
Also, it would be a right time to have a clear policy from APNIC to clarify what and when any (available + reserved) resource goes into AS0 TAL.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Brett O'Hara brett@fj.com.au wrote:
Hi Jordi and SIG
The implication of your proposal, by 5.1.4, is that by putting them in Reserved status, APNIC will assign them RPKI ROA AS0 and deny them routing on the Internet. You will then allow them 12 months grace after you have denied their operation to officially claim them. Your update from 6 to 12 months has not allowed APNIC any more time to contact custodians.
I agree with Andrew that the current impact is too large and too damaging to internet end point users in your proposed time frame.
I believe APNIC members should asess the progress of the HRM project in 12 months time and consider your proposal then, rather than mandating in a policy final date in this cycle, despite your afore mentioned risks.
Regards,
Brett
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 10:19 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Jordi,
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 22:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
In February 2022, APNIC made a decision that to RPKI validation and registration services would only be provided to resource holders who were members of APNIC, and that all historical resources would be required to be registered with APNIC. This is a sensible decision.
They gave 12 months for this process to happen. The evidence would suggest that in that period of time, APNIC has not successfully achieved the goal of bringing these resources into membership status. There may be any number of reasons for this, but the statistics indicate that to date, APNIC has only been partially successful. With 4 months to go, it would appear that to date this process is not likely to yield a high degree of success at present given the high number of prefixes present in the internet table that have not yet made contact with APNIC.
This policy proposal binds APNIC to taking a particular course of action when the 12 months are up. Without this policy, it would appear to me that there is no specific statement by APNIC on what will or will not happen to these resources. From what I can see, it will be up to the Secretariat's discretion to work out what to do; and in lack of specific policies APNIC has historically leaned towards a functional internet.
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
It could be argued that effectively they are now.
But, they exist in the global routing table. Someone is originating them.
Absolutely, it's worth having a discussion about what should happen with these resources. But, the current proposal is not a good option, and I do not see a path to modify this proposal in such a way that addresses what should be very real concerns for all internet operators.
The only upside that I can see from this policy is that the resources can ultimately be reclaimed and reallocated to members as part of the reclaimed IPv4 space policies. But even then, until the prefixes are no longer originated, this is not viable.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
As a MANRS member, and an organisation who implements ROA and RPKI, I wholeheartedly agree that as much of the internet should implement RPKI and ROA as is possible, and resources should be signed.
But, this policy is not tto require all resources to be signed, this policy is to force APNIC to take a certain level of action that will cause these prefixes to become unreachable on the internet for many providers, which seems to fly in the face of providing a stable internet policy.
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
I think the statistics speak for themselves.
It would be interesting to know, of the 81 who have successfully been brought across, how many organisations are represented; and if the secretariat has any indication of the 800 prefixes not currently brought into membership, if they have any indication on how many potential members this equates to.
Andrew
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in
the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not
successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
*From: *Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net *Date: *Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm *To: *Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < jordi.palet@consulintel.es> *Cc: *sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net *Subject: *[sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
*Recommendations:*
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
*Clarification:*
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We 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-147Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
- Objective of policy change
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
- Situation in other regions
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
- Proposed policy solution
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Andrew,
The EC decision is clear. If there is no policy, they will frozen on January 1st. There is no possible secretariat discretion to change that or do anything different.
Those resources will be placed in reserved status, no RPKI, no whois, no services, etc. For me this is worst in terms of chances to be misused, hijacked, etc, than today’s situation.
This proposal allows that deadline to be extended further 12 months.
I don’t agree that they exist in the routing table. Some may be there, some not. That's the reason why some of them can’t be contacted.
If you (the community) believe that the time frame of 12 months is short, I’ve no problem to increase it to 18 months, but something needs to be done.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 15:11, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi Jordi,
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 22:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
In February 2022, APNIC made a decision that to RPKI validation and registration services would only be provided to resource holders who were members of APNIC, and that all historical resources would be required to be registered with APNIC. This is a sensible decision.
They gave 12 months for this process to happen. The evidence would suggest that in that period of time, APNIC has not successfully achieved the goal of bringing these resources into membership status. There may be any number of reasons for this, but the statistics indicate that to date, APNIC has only been partially successful. With 4 months to go, it would appear that to date this process is not likely to yield a high degree of success at present given the high number of prefixes present in the internet table that have not yet made contact with APNIC.
This policy proposal binds APNIC to taking a particular course of action when the 12 months are up. Without this policy, it would appear to me that there is no specific statement by APNIC on what will or will not happen to these resources. From what I can see, it will be up to the Secretariat's discretion to work out what to do; and in lack of specific policies APNIC has historically leaned towards a functional internet.
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
It could be argued that effectively they are now.
But, they exist in the global routing table. Someone is originating them.
Absolutely, it's worth having a discussion about what should happen with these resources. But, the current proposal is not a good option, and I do not see a path to modify this proposal in such a way that addresses what should be very real concerns for all internet operators.
The only upside that I can see from this policy is that the resources can ultimately be reclaimed and reallocated to members as part of the reclaimed IPv4 space policies. But even then, until the prefixes are no longer originated, this is not viable.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
As a MANRS member, and an organisation who implements ROA and RPKI, I wholeheartedly agree that as much of the internet should implement RPKI and ROA as is possible, and resources should be signed.
But, this policy is not tto require all resources to be signed, this policy is to force APNIC to take a certain level of action that will cause these prefixes to become unreachable on the internet for many providers, which seems to fly in the face of providing a stable internet policy.
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
I think the statistics speak for themselves.
It would be interesting to know, of the 81 who have successfully been brought across, how many organisations are represented; and if the secretariat has any indication of the 800 prefixes not currently brought into membership, if they have any indication on how many potential members this equates to.
Andrew
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" andrew@rwts.com.au escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi sunny@apnic.net Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager andrew@rwts.com.au, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" sunny@apnic.net escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Jordi,
Please find the comments inline —
On 07-Sep-2022, at 13:59, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
The EC decision is clear. If there is no policy, they will frozen on January 1st. There is no possible secretariat discretion to change that or do anything different.
Those resources will be placed in reserved status, no RPKI, no whois, no services, etc. For me this is worst in terms of chances to be misused, hijacked, etc, than today’s situation.
As the resources are currently not under any apnic account, then there will be no RPKI valid for them anyway. Plus till date, RPKI is not the thing which is must across the Internet And as APNIC secretariat also told that some of the resources are there in global routing table, that means, that changing the WHOIS , RPKI will not do much impact to them. Please correct me if I am wrong.
This proposal allows that deadline to be extended further 12 months.
I don’t agree that they exist in the routing table. Some may be there, some not. That's the reason why some of them can’t be contacted.
If you (the community) believe that the time frame of 12 months is short, I’ve no problem to increase it to 18 months, but something needs to be done.
Regards, Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 15:11, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.au mailto:andrew@rwts.com.au> escribió:
Hi Jordi,
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 22:19, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
In February 2022, APNIC made a decision that to RPKI validation and registration services would only be provided to resource holders who were members of APNIC, and that all historical resources would be required to be registered with APNIC. This is a sensible decision.
They gave 12 months for this process to happen. The evidence would suggest that in that period of time, APNIC has not successfully achieved the goal of bringing these resources into membership status. There may be any number of reasons for this, but the statistics indicate that to date, APNIC has only been partially successful. With 4 months to go, it would appear that to date this process is not likely to yield a high degree of success at present given the high number of prefixes present in the internet table that have not yet made contact with APNIC.
This policy proposal binds APNIC to taking a particular course of action when the 12 months are up. Without this policy, it would appear to me that there is no specific statement by APNIC on what will or will not happen to these resources. From what I can see, it will be up to the Secretariat's discretion to work out what to do; and in lack of specific policies APNIC has historically leaned towards a functional internet.
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
It could be argued that effectively they are now.
But, they exist in the global routing table. Someone is originating them.
Absolutely, it's worth having a discussion about what should happen with these resources. But, the current proposal is not a good option, and I do not see a path to modify this proposal in such a way that addresses what should be very real concerns for all internet operators.
The only upside that I can see from this policy is that the resources can ultimately be reclaimed and reallocated to members as part of the reclaimed IPv4 space policies. But even then, until the prefixes are no longer originated, this is not viable.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
As a MANRS member, and an organisation who implements ROA and RPKI, I wholeheartedly agree that as much of the internet should implement RPKI and ROA as is possible, and resources should be signed.
But, this policy is not tto require all resources to be signed, this policy is to force APNIC to take a certain level of action that will cause these prefixes to become unreachable on the internet for many providers, which seems to fly in the face of providing a stable internet policy.
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
I think the statistics speak for themselves.
It would be interesting to know, of the 81 who have successfully been brought across, how many organisations are represented; and if the secretariat has any indication of the 800 prefixes not currently brought into membership, if they have any indication on how many potential members this equates to.
Andrew
Regards, Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.au mailto:andrew@rwts.com.au> escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.net mailto:vivek@apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81 These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175 We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581 We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44 No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4 The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net> Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager <andrew@rwts.com.au mailto:andrew@rwts.com.au>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text: “Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards, Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net> escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147 <http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147>APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4.... https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4.pdf
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8 <https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8>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-147 <http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147>Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam mailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com mailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
- Objective of policy change
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
- Situation in other regions
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
- Proposed policy solution
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com http://www.theipv6company.com/ The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com http://www.theipv6company.com/ The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
I'd like evidence to support "Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities.", after all - these prefixes have already existed for a significant time already.
I also concur that we should leave these to reserved if unclaimed and instead of continuing to keep expending effort on IPv4 that we focus on IPv6 deployments.
-----Original Message----- From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Friday, 26 August 2022 10:19 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.au mailto:andrew@rwts.com.au > escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.net mailto:vivek@apnic.net > wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
> a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
> b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net > Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager <andrew@rwts.com.au mailto:andrew@rwts.com.au >, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es > Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew, Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible. Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net > escribió:
Hi all, This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page. http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147 APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them. APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022. https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4.... Recommendations: For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s". Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023. Clarification: This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely. Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members, The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022. https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8 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-147 Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs --------------------------------------------------------------- prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management ---------------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam mailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam ) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com mailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com ) 1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources. The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status. Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them. If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason. One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed. To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated. Disadvantages: None. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None. 7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
-- _______________________________________________________________________ Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
-- _______________________________________________________________________ Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Tim,
The difference is that they have RPKI and whois support. Not after January 1st.
I fully agree that the important point is to continue the IPv6 deployment, but having those resources back into APNIC pool, will help some members or newcomers to use some of those addresses for an ordered transition. Even for IPv6-ony + IPv4aaS you need *some* IPv4 pools. More and more organizations (enterprises), will come on board with direct APNIC assignments due to IPv6, and the best way to do that, technically speaking, is having also a small IPv4 subnet.
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 27/8/22, 2:25, "Tim Warnock" timoid@timoid.org escribió:
I'd like evidence to support "Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities.", after all - these prefixes have already existed for a significant time already.
I also concur that we should leave these to reserved if unclaimed and instead of continuing to keep expending effort on IPv4 that we focus on IPv6 deployments.
-----Original Message----- From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Friday, 26 August 2022 10:19 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.au mailto:andrew@rwts.com.au > escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.net mailto:vivek@apnic.net > wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
> a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81
These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175
We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581
We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44
No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4
The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
> b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks
Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net > Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager <andrew@rwts.com.au mailto:andrew@rwts.com.au >, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es > Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote:
Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net > wrote:
Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text:
“Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net > escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam mailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam ) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com mailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com )
1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None.
7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On 07-Sep-2022, at 14:02, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote:
Hi Tim,
The difference is that they have RPKI and whois support. Not after January 1st.
I fully agree that the important point is to continue the IPv6 deployment, but having those resources back into APNIC pool, will help some members or newcomers to use some of those addresses for an ordered transition.
With the current allocation pace of IPv4, APNIC existing ip resources will not going to deplete with next few years. So no point in pushing this policy just for reclaiming back the historical resources.
Even for IPv6-ony + IPv4aaS you need *some* IPv4 pools. More and more organizations (enterprises), will come on board with direct APNIC assignments due to IPv6, and the best way to do that, technically speaking, is having also a small IPv4 subnet.
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 27/8/22, 2:25, "Tim Warnock" timoid@timoid.org escribió:
I'd like evidence to support "Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities.", after all - these prefixes have already existed for a significant time already.
I also concur that we should leave these to reserved if unclaimed and instead of continuing to keep expending effort on IPv4 that we focus on IPv6 deployments.
-----Original Message----- From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Sent: Friday, 26 August 2022 10:19 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Hi Andrew, all,
I see it otherwise.
We are providing APNIC one year to resolve the remaining cases. If we don’t have this policy on January 1st 2023, all those addresses will be “frozen” into reserved status.
Please note this:
“The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.”
Failing to reach consensus on this proposal (suggestions to improve it, of course, are welcome, as we can publish new versions in the next few days), means that we can’t change the situation up to a new alternative proposal reach consensus, which could happen around March 2023, or may be September 2023. Till then those resources are “lost” in the wild.
Resources in the wild could be more easily hijacked or used for all kind of malicious activities. Do you think the community should accept that risk?
In the impact analysis of the first version, APNIC indicated that 6 months may be too short, and 12 months will be safer, so we opted for keeping the 12 months option only. Do you have any data that suggest that APNIC will be unable to complete the project in the next year?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/8/22, 2:56, "Andrew Yager" <andrew@rwts.com.au mailto:andrew@rwts.com.au > escribió:
Hi,
Thanks for this data vivek.
On the basis of this I cannot suggest this proposal can be accepted - the impact is too large.
Certainly we, as a community, and APNIC as a whole, need to look at what can be done to assist these prefixes coming "into the fold" - but with 581 still with no response, and 175 "not yet done" - the risk of this proposal having adverse consequences on the routing table is too great.
Andrew
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 17:45, Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.net mailto:vivek@apnic.net > wrote:
Hi Andrew, Please see my responses below. > a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes. Retained by custodian: 81 These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now. Being claimed by custodian: 175 We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes. No response: 581 We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes. Yet to contact: 44 No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes. No longer needed: 4 The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them. > b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year. Thanks Vivek From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net <mailto:sunny@apnic.net> > Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager <andrew@rwts.com.au <mailto:andrew@rwts.com.au> >, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es <mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es> > Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> > Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management Dear Andrew, Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible. Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote: Is there any data indicating: a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success. Andrew On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> > wrote: Hi Sunny, all, Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text: “Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.” Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.net <mailto:sunny@apnic.net> > escribió: Hi all, This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page. http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147 APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them. APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022. https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4.pdf Recommendations: For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s". Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023. Clarification: This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely. Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members, The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022. https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8 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-147 Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs --------------------------------------------------------------- prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management ---------------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam <mailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam> ) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com <mailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com> ) 1. Problem statement -------------------- Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources. The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status. Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition. 2. Objective of policy change ----------------------------- Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them. If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason. One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed. To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months. 3. Situation in other regions ----------------------------- In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies. 4. Proposed policy solution --------------------------- Proposed policy solution (option 6-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. 5. Advantages / Disadvantages ----------------------------- Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated. Disadvantages: None. 6. Impact on resource holders ----------------------------- None. 7. References ------------- None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net> -- _______________________________________________________________________ Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com <https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0> The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net> -- _______________________________________________________________________ Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Vivek,
Do we have public information available for 581+44 prefixes (which are under ’No response’ and ‘yet to contact’ category) ? If it is available, then I (and other community member also) can try to contact the resource holders in my geographic area.
If not, then can we think of sharing this so that community can help APNIC in contacting the resource holders.
Thanks, Gaurav Kansal
On 26-Aug-2022, at 13:15, vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81 These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175 We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581 We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44 No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4 The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net> Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager <andrew@rwts.com.au mailto:andrew@rwts.com.au>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote: Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote: Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text: “Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards, Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.net mailto:sunny@apnic.net> escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147 <http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147>APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4.... https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4.pdf
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat
On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote: Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8 <https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8>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-147 <http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147>Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam mailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com mailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
- Objective of policy change
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
- Situation in other regions
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
- Proposed policy solution
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7C73ddfbf89877403281b708da85a6fadf%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637969249468055548%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Z7TkQoAtF6hnrTCzUQiJsHk4gdII1TlYSHBueYOSwy4%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him) Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.net http://www.apnic.net/ _______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Gaurav,
Thank you for offering your assistance, much appreciated. Unfortunately the details of unclaimed historical prefixes are not public, as this could make them vulnerable to hijacks.
However, if there are any unclaimed historical resources delegated to R&D entities in India, we will contact you off-list.
Thanks, Vivek
From: Gaurav Kansal gaurav.kansal@nic.in Date: Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 8:42 pm To: Vivek Nigam vivek@apnic.net Cc: Sunny Chendi sunny@apnic.net, andrew@rwts.com.au andrew@rwts.com.au, jordi.palet@consulintel.es jordi.palet@consulintel.es, sig-policy@lists.apnic.net sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management Hi Vivek,
Do we have public information available for 581+44 prefixes (which are under ’No response’ and ‘yet to contact’ category) ? If it is available, then I (and other community member also) can try to contact the resource holders in my geographic area.
If not, then can we think of sharing this so that community can help APNIC in contacting the resource holders.
Thanks, Gaurav Kansal
On 26-Aug-2022, at 13:15, vivek@apnic.netmailto:vivek@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Andrew,
Please see my responses below.
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process
We started this project in February this year and identified 3932 historical IPv4 prefixes that were not managed under an APNIC account. 885 of these prefixes are currently visible in the routing table. Following if the breakdown of these 885 prefixes.
Retained by custodian: 81 These prefixes have successfully been claimed and are managed under active APNIC accounts now.
Being claimed by custodian: 175 We are in contact with the potential custodians and they are in the process of claiming these prefixes.
No response: 581 We have sent emails to the custodians but have not got a response as yet. We are in the process to find alternate contacts by contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
Yet to contact: 44 No valid contact information available in whois. We are in the process to look for alternate contacts via publicly available searches as well as contacting the ASN announcing these prefixes.
No longer needed: 4 The custodians have informed us they no longer need these prefixes. We are in the process to contact the ASN announcing these prefixes to check why they are announcing them.
b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
So far we have not formally rejected any claims. Where a claimant does not provide sufficient information to support their claim, we do not reject the claim but rather advise them we will need more information in order to properly assess it. We have 3 pending cases where we have requested additional supporting information and one case where the custodian has refused to setup an APNIC account. We will continue to assist them with their claims through the year.
Thanks Vivek
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.netmailto:sunny@apnic.net> Date: Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 6:02 pm To: Andrew Yager <andrew@rwts.com.aumailto:andrew@rwts.com.au>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.esmailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management Dear Andrew,
Thank you for requesting data. We will do our best to provide it as soon as possible.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 24/08/2022 4:03 pm, Andrew Yager wrote: Is there any data indicating:
a) the number of legacy resources currently in use (as in, visible in the global table), but not yet claimed through this process b) the number of legacy resource claims that have been attempted but not successfully justified
I am aware that this has remained a topic of concern for a number of APNIC members and technical engineers, and many have been working with APNIC to try and resolve resource allocations with various degrees of success.
Andrew
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote: Hi Sunny, all,
Just summited a new proposal version amending the editorial inputs and also adding the following text: “Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources.”
Also, in order to facilitate the job, I agree that will be safer to move to a single option with 12 months, so I’ve deleted the “2 choices” in the new version.
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 23/8/22, 6:51, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" <sunny@apnic.netmailto:sunny@apnic.net> escribió:
Hi all,
This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-147-v001, which is also available on the proposal page.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-147
APNIC understands that this proposal suggests that historical IPv4 resources be justified and claimed, or that they be made available to other organizations that require them.
APNIC also notes the deletion of Section 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources. As reported to the community at APNIC 50, this may no longer be applicable once the project is completed, possibly by the end of 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/50/assets/files/APCS790/Reclaiming-unused-IPv4....
Recommendations:
For consistency of language and to align with the current policy document, the reference to "available pool" could be changed to "free pool". Also the reference to "original resource holder" and "original custodians" could be changed to "custodian/s".
Given the number of uncontactable resource holders, the 12-month option would be safer for APNIC to implement, as some historical resource holders may not be aware of the changes to the treatment of historical resources until they are placed into reserved status on January 1, 2023.
Clarification:
This proposal only addresses historical resources that have not been claimed by January 1st, 2023. It does not specify what happens to the historical resources that are claimed, but the Member or Non-Member account is not renewed after January 1, 2023. These resources will be considered historical and may remain in reserve status indefinitely.
Regards, Sunny APNIC Secretariat On 11/08/2022 4:59 pm, chku wrote:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
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-147
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------------
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupammailto:jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam)
Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.commailto:anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
3. Situation in other regions
-----------------------------
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months):
Actual text:
4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove)
To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text:
4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
None.
_______________________________________________
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.nethttp://www.apnic.net/
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.comhttps://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theipv6company.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cea8c001fa82b4b45a13508da8b3d7fb0%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637975393532667216%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=IL1gwGXp%2FX1lmdn5z9yWyrhRDmNEVnnP9TPbKK00fiQ%3D&reserved=0 The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi (he/him)
Senior Advisor - Policy and Community Development
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD | http://www.apnic.nethttp://www.apnic.net/
_______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
copies of the original message.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.netmailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
[https://email.gov.in/videos/images/75.jpg]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Famritmahotsav.nic.in%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cea8c001fa82b4b45a13508da8b3d7fb0%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637975393532667216%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=tOalFRBypsjejbrGWMUf5UmmBqYI%2B%2B%2F%2FGonFapulUhY%3D&reserved=0
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-145, based on a meeting we organised on 29th Aug to discuss these proposals.
Many support opinions were expressed about this proposal.
And in response to a comment that HRM activities in Japan might be helpful, JPNIC staff reported on their activities in Japan. - Start Dec.2014 - Contact resource holders by any means possible, email, phone, mail, referral from an acquaintance, etc. - Finish 19th Mar 2019 with the signing of the contract with all resource Holders.
(comment details) - There are many unresponses to contacts from APNIC, which may have a significant impact when it comes to consensus. - It would be better to explain HRM's past activities for new members for more understanding. - I support this proposal, but it will be necessary to response carefully to the resource holders
Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team
2022年8月11日(木) 16:00 chku chku@twnic.tw:
Dear SIG members,
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We 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-147Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
- Problem statement
Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources.
The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status.
Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition.
- Objective of policy change
Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them.
If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason.
One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed.
To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months.
- Situation in other regions
In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies.
- Proposed policy solution
Proposed policy solution (option 6-months):
Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): Actual text: 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998.
To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time.
Proposed text: 4.3. Historical Resources Management Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation.
- Advantages / Disadvantages
Advantages: Fulfilling the objective above indicated.
Disadvantages: None.
- Impact on resource holders
None.
- References
None. _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Satoru,
Tks for your inputs. It will be good if you can comment on the emails that I just responded.
Key question is if we don't believe that 12 months is sufficient, would you agree with 18-months, or do you suggest any additional improvements to the proposal?
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 2/9/22, 7:13, "Tsurumaki, Satoru" stsuruma@bbix.net escribió:
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-145, based on a meeting we organised on 29th Aug to discuss these proposals.
Many support opinions were expressed about this proposal.
And in response to a comment that HRM activities in Japan might be helpful, JPNIC staff reported on their activities in Japan. - Start Dec.2014 - Contact resource holders by any means possible, email, phone, mail, referral from an acquaintance, etc. - Finish 19th Mar 2019 with the signing of the contract with all resource Holders.
(comment details) - There are many unresponses to contacts from APNIC, which may have a significant impact when it comes to consensus. - It would be better to explain HRM's past activities for new members for more understanding. - I support this proposal, but it will be necessary to response carefully to the resource holders
Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team
2022年8月11日(木) 16:00 chku chku@twnic.tw: > > Dear SIG members, > > The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been > sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on > Thursday, 15 September 2022. > > https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8 > > 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-147 > > Regards, > Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) > Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com) > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources. > > The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status. > > Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them. > > If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason. > > One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed. > > To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > Proposed policy solution (option 6-months): > > Actual text: > 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) > To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. > > To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. > > Proposed text: > 4.3. Historical Resources Management > Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. > > Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. > > Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): > Actual text: > 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) > To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. > > To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. > > Proposed text: > 4.3. Historical Resources Management > Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. > > Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > Advantages: > Fulfilling the objective above indicated. > > Disadvantages: > None. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------- > None. > > > 7. References > ------------- > None. > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
-- -- Satoru Tsurumaki BBIX, Inc _______________________________________________ sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Jordi,
There was no discussion whether the term should be 6 or 12 months in the past meeting. As you can see from my earlier email, the majority of the Japanese community is in favor of the proposal itself.
It’s a significant change to have historical holders become members/non-members of APNIC. Therefore, we believe that we should clearly communicate to current APNIC members what HRM activities we have been involved in and the reasons that would compel us to take such a mandatory step.
Regards, Satoru
2022年9月7日(水) 17:54 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net:
Hi Satoru,
Tks for your inputs. It will be good if you can comment on the emails that I just responded.
Key question is if we don't believe that 12 months is sufficient, would you agree with 18-months, or do you suggest any additional improvements to the proposal?
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 2/9/22, 7:13, "Tsurumaki, Satoru" stsuruma@bbix.net escribió:
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-145, based on a meeting we organised on 29th Aug to discuss these proposals. Many support opinions were expressed about this proposal. And in response to a comment that HRM activities in Japan might be helpful, JPNIC staff reported on their activities in Japan. - Start Dec.2014 - Contact resource holders by any means possible, email, phone, mail, referral from an acquaintance, etc. - Finish 19th Mar 2019 with the signing of the contract with all resource Holders. (comment details) - There are many unresponses to contacts from APNIC, which may havea significant impact when it comes to consensus. - It would be better to explain HRM's past activities for new members for more understanding. - I support this proposal, but it will be necessary to response carefully to the resource holders
Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team 2022年8月11日(木) 16:00 chku <chku@twnic.tw>: > > Dear SIG members, > > The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been > sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on > Thursday, 15 September 2022. > > https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8 > > 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-147 > > Regards, > Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) > Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com) > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources. > > The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status. > > Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them. > > If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason. > > One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed. > > To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > Proposed policy solution (option 6-months): > > Actual text: > 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) > To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. > > To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. > > Proposed text: > 4.3. Historical Resources Management > Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. > > Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. > > Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): > Actual text: > 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) > To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. > > To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. > > Proposed text: > 4.3. Historical Resources Management > Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. > > Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > Advantages: > Fulfilling the objective above indicated. > > Disadvantages: > None. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------- > None. > > > 7. References > ------------- > None. > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net -- -- Satoru Tsurumaki BBIX, Inc _______________________________________________ sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Satoru,
Tks a lot and well understood from my side.
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 8/9/22, 3:23, "Tsurumaki, Satoru" stsuruma@bbix.net escribió:
Hi Jordi,
There was no discussion whether the term should be 6 or 12 months in the past meeting. As you can see from my earlier email, the majority of the Japanese community is in favor of the proposal itself.
It’s a significant change to have historical holders become members/non-members of APNIC. Therefore, we believe that we should clearly communicate to current APNIC members what HRM activities we have been involved in and the reasons that would compel us to take such a mandatory step.
Regards, Satoru
2022年9月7日(水) 17:54 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy sig-policy@lists.apnic.net: > > Hi Satoru, > > Tks for your inputs. It will be good if you can comment on the emails that I just responded. > > Key question is if we don't believe that 12 months is sufficient, would you agree with 18-months, or do you suggest any additional improvements to the proposal? > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > El 2/9/22, 7:13, "Tsurumaki, Satoru" stsuruma@bbix.net escribió: > > 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-145, > based on a meeting we organised on 29th Aug to discuss these proposals. > > Many support opinions were expressed about this proposal. > > And in response to a comment that HRM activities in Japan might be > helpful, JPNIC staff reported on their activities in Japan. > - Start Dec.2014 > - Contact resource holders by any means possible, email, phone, mail, > referral from an acquaintance, etc. > - Finish 19th Mar 2019 with the signing of the contract with all > resource Holders. > > (comment details) > - There are many unresponses to contacts from APNIC, which may have > a significant impact when it comes to consensus. > - It would be better to explain HRM's past activities for new members > for more understanding. > - I support this proposal, but it will be necessary to response carefully > to the resource holders > > > Regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team > > 2022年8月11日(木) 16:00 chku chku@twnic.tw: > > > > Dear SIG members, > > > > The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been > > sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > > > It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on > > Thursday, 15 September 2022. > > > > https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8 > > > > 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-147 > > > > Regards, > > Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) > > Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com) > > > > > > 1. Problem statement > > -------------------- > > Section 4.2.1 is outdated and only looking for very old non-routed resources. > > > > The recent EC resolution (22nd February 2022), imply that historical resource holders in the APNIC region would need to become Members or Non-Members by 1st January 2023 in order to receive registration services. Failing this, historical resource registration will no longer be published in the APNIC Whois Database and said resources will be placed into reserved status. > > > > Given the continued need for IPv4 addresses, it would seem illogical to keep these unused historical resources in reserve indefinitely. Alternatively, these resources can be used in a way that is sufficiently justified in accordance with existing policies, allowing other organizations to benefit from them during the IPv6 transition. > > > > > > 2. Objective of policy change > > ----------------------------- > > Ensure that historical IPv4 resources are justified and claimed, or that they are available for other organizations that require them. > > > > If the resources are marked as reserved, the original holders may reclaim them with a valid justification, when APNIC failed to contact them for whatever reason. > > > > One example of a valid justification is the case where an organization is actually using them internally and there are valid reasons to instead use RFC1918 space, however the space is not routed. > > > > To give the original resource holders more time to reclaim them, we propose two time-frames for the community discussion and consideration: 6 months and 12 months. > > > > > > 3. Situation in other regions > > ----------------------------- > > In other RIRs legacy resources lose their legacy status when the RSA is signed (upon receiving other resources), so they become under the regular monitoring. In other cases, there is nothing specified by policies. > > > > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > > --------------------------- > > Proposed policy solution (option 6-months): > > > > Actual text: > > 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) > > To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. > > > > To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. > > > > Proposed text: > > 4.3. Historical Resources Management > > Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. > > > > Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional six (6) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. > > > > Proposed policy solution (option 12-months): > > Actual text: > > 4.2.1. Recovery of unused historical resources (remove) > > To recover these globally un-routed resources and place them back in the free pool for re-delegation, APNIC will contact networks responsible for historical address space in the APNIC region that has not been globally routed since 1 January 1998. > > > > To recover un-routed historical AS numbers, APNIC will contact networks responsible for resources not globally used for a reasonable period of time. > > > > Proposed text: > > 4.3. Historical Resources Management > > Historical resources that have not been claimed by the original resource holder will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved. > > > > Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their original custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the available pool for re-delegation. > > > > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > > ----------------------------- > > Advantages: > > Fulfilling the objective above indicated. > > > > Disadvantages: > > None. > > > > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > > ----------------------------- > > None. > > > > > > 7. References > > ------------- > > None. > > _______________________________________________ > > sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net > > > > -- > -- > Satoru Tsurumaki > BBIX, Inc > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy - sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
-- -- Satoru Tsurumaki BBIX, Inc
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Dear APNIC SIG-POLICY,
Hopefully this email finds you in good health!
Please see my comments below, inline... Thanks.
Le jeudi 11 août 2022, chku chku@twnic.tw a écrit :
Dear SIG members,
Hi Chku, Thanks for your email.
The proposal "prop-147: Historical Resources Management" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on Thursday, 15 September 2022.
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list before the OPM.
...i went through the version 002 [1] of this policy proposal and i picked the following part of text:
"Proposed text:
[Remove] Section 4.2.1 Recovery of unused historical resources
[Add] Section 4.3. Historical Resources Management
Historical resources that have not been claimed by the custodian will be deleted from the APNIC Whois database after 1st January 2023, and marked as reserved.
Historical resources marked as reserved have an additional twelve (12) months to be claimed by their custodians. After that, APNIC will add these resources to the free pool for re-delegation.
Furthermore, from 1st January 2023, all historical resources need to be maintained in a current APNIC account. In the event of an account closure, the historical resource will be placed in a quarantine period and then made available for re-delegation similar to current resources." __ [1]: https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/prop-147-v002.txt#:~:text=P... .
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:
Having read various interesting comments too, i suggest to add the following additional text, in order to "try" to address the concerns raised:
-.- |1. Three months after started the campaign to uniformize historical INRs, all those resources not yet successfully claimed shall be tagged as "under uniformization"; |2. Any resource tagged "under uniformization" are untagged when successfully claimed by its right custodian; |3. After one year AS0 ROAs are create for all resources still tagged "under uniformization" |4. Former custodian (with evidence) of any historical INR resource assignment failed under quarantine shall be prioritised if they suddently request (before it has been already all allocated / assigned) the INRs they was not able to successfully claim holdering at time before. |5. ... _._
Shalom, --sb.
- 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-147Regards, Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
prop-147-v001: Historical Resources Management
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) Anupam Agrawal (anupamagrawal.in@gmail.com)
[...]
Activity Summary
- 377 days inactive
- 377 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 11 participants
- 45 comments