Re: [sig-policy] SIG Policy Proposal 'Preventing the routing of'dark' ad
I understand the issue you have raised, but I still can't quite
understand your proposal.
Could you please clarify what specific actions you expect APNIC and
possibily, the community members to take?
I've also added my comments inline.
From: APNIC Secretariat <secretariat at apnic dot net>
Subject: [sig-policy] SIG Policy Proposal 'Preventing the routing of 'dark' address space
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 17:39:27 +1000
>
>
> This proposal is being sent to the mailing list on behalf of Gordon Bader
> <gbader at cox dot net>. Feedback and comments about this proposal are welcome on
> this mailing list.
>
> regards,
> APNIC Secretariat.
> ---
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-023-v001: A proposal to prevent the routing of "dark" address
> space
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Proposed by: Gordon Bader
> <gbader at cox dot net>
> Version: 1.0
> Date: 4 August 2004
>
>
> Introduction:
>
> "Dark" address space is unallocated IP address space. Bandwidth
> originating from "dark" address space should not be routed at any level.
>
> Summary:
>
> Bandwidth originating from unallocated IP address space is being
> used for SPAM. In addition, unallocated IP address space is being
> used to host websites that support SPAM.
>
> APNIC has the ability to grant IP space. Given that ability, it also
> has the inherent ability to remove what was granted. The implicit
> grant of IP space, carries with it the ability to route, and route
> in a "legal" manner. When "illegal" (dark address space) routing is
> detected, then the price should be loss of the initial grant - in this
> case the ability to operate which carries with it economic measures.
>
> Details:
>
> Routing tables should be configured for non routing (filtering) of
> unallocated IP address space as well as allocated IP address space.
> Traffic to and from unallocated (or allocated but unused) IP address
> space should be dropped as soon as recognized, thus saving bandwidth up
> channel.
Are you proposing ISPs in the community to apply the above policy, or
is this simply an explanation of something which should be done, and
not a part of the proposal?
If it's the first, I think it is out of scope of the address policy.
> Employ the basic law - what can be given, can be taken away. APNIC
> should issue a warning first, followed by removal of IP space from the
> offending ISP or entity at what ever level. IP addresses are provided
> under a contract, thus using contract law, removal is possible.
If the offending entities are using unallocated address blocks, I'm
not sure what you mean by "removal". Would there be anything to remove
if allocations were not made in the first place?
I don't quite understand how APNIC can be invloved in this, and how
effective it would be in addressing the problem. I hope you can
clarify this a little bit more.
Izumi
JPNIC
> Pros/Cons:
>
> Pros:
> By adopting this policy, bandwidth utilization will be reduced. Criminal
> enterprises will no longer be served.
>
> Cons:
> Disadvantages include new routing tables of increasing complexity
> to handle the non routing issues associated with dark address space
> activities and the associated traffic generated.
>
> Effect on APNIC:
>
> Reduction in bandwidth handled and in it's associated rate of growth.
>
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>