Re: [sig-policy] Forwarded reply from Gordon Bader
Thanks for the clarification regarding this policy. However it seems obvious
that reassigning address space under such conditions would cause even
greater confusion regarding routing table accuracy. Hence it would seem
more than obvious that such a policy is not only unwise, it is troublesome
and disruptive unnecessarily.
Tim Jones wrote:
> Dear Gordon and others,
>
> You may be interested to know that APNIC does have an internal procedure whereby "bogon" lists are periodically monitored.
>
> When an instance of APNIC unallocated address space being announced is detected, a "cease and desist" order as you put it, is sent to the announcing ASN, and also upstreams providing transit.
>
> As well as requesting that the announcements cease immediately, these notices point out that this address space may be allocated to a third party at any time with obvious consequences for routing.
>
> This procedure is handled by APNIC hostmasters, who can be contacted at helpdesk at apnic dot net if you have any queries regarding this procedure.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim.
> --
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> Tim Jones Internet Resource Analyst <tim at apnic dot net>
> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre phone: +61 7 3858 3100
> http://www.apnic.net fax: +61 7 3858 3199
> Helpdesk phone: +61 7 3858 3188
> Helpdesk Requests <helpdesk at apnic dot net>
>
> Please send Internet Resource Requests to <hostmaster at apnic dot net>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> APNIC 18
> Nadi, Fiji, 31 August-3 September 2004
> http://www.apnic.net/meetings/18
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, GB wrote:
>
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > Thank you very much for publishing the additional information. The
> > 3 week period I referred to was just that one example that I had at hand
> > and did not want to cite anything longer because I did not have a
> > concrete example, just in case I was asked to provide additional
> > documentation. I also wanted to give the carriers the "benefit of
> > doubt" that they try to do a reasonable job at table maintenance.
> >
> > In all honesty, I submitted the proposal to generate some thought
> > within the community on the problem and possible solutions. I do
> > realize that the various local legalities (local to the ISPs and various
> > carriers) as well as the previously cited international and trade
> > concerns create a very difficult landscape for such a proposal as this
> > to have any traction at all, especially with the drastic economic impact
> > that it carries. Coupling the various legalities, trade, economic
> > realities together, you wind up with a nearly insurmountable problem,
> > especially for a proposal that is rather simple and drastic in nature.
> >
> > Given all of this, I ask the community, how else other than
> > sanctions that carry drastic economic consequences will such large
> > carriers (as well as smaller ISPs) essentially be forced to police
> > themselves? Has the servicing of dark space become a "cost of doing
> > business", and if so, what happens when it's growth creates a situation
> > that cannot be ignored? Does the community just legitimize the practice
> > and go forward? SPAM traffic now consumes well over 60% of email
> > traffic. Will we have a "controlled" area of IP space that co-exists at
> > some level with "uncontrolled" space - an extension of what we have
> > now? What happens when a new allocation is made that takes away
> > someone's use of dark space that they have been "using" for a
> > substantial period of time. Will they claim legal ownership under
> > something similar to real estate's "Adverse Possession"?
> >
> > I would also like to ask something that I touched on before. Has
> > APNIC considered a test in that they would officially request that XYZ
> > (i.e., ATT, MSN, MCI, AOL, etc.) to return it's property (the
> > unallocated IP address space). Essentially, by routing a dark space
> > address, the service in question, is denying APNIC the control of it's
> > property that it needs back under it's control for authorized legal
> > allocation. A cease and desist order for lack of a better description.
> > It might be an interesting attempt. I would think that say ATT for
> > example, would have a difficult time denying APNIC's request to return
> > (stop routing a dark space address), when its own IP address allocation
> > has been derived from an RIR. What recourse would APNIC have if such a
> > request were either ignored or refused outright?
> >
> > With regards,
> > Gordon
> >
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > >GB and all,
> > >
> > > ATT has been routing and utilizing dark address space for at least 3 years
> > >that I can document, not mearly 3 weeks. Worldcom/con/MCI has been
> > >doing so for longer than 4 years that I can document. AOL has been doing so
> > >for longer than 6 years that I can document. And MSN has been doing so
> > >for a little more than 4 years that I know of.
> > >
> > > Hence I cannot in good faith, agree with your comment or opinion that
> > >"Most if not all carriers, I believe attempt to perform a good job keeping
> > >their tables current and clean."
> > >
> > > I believe that Dr Batista, myself and others on other verious forums going
> > >back at least 4 years have pointed this out to Worldcom/con/MCI as well
> > >as ATT before.
> > >
> > >GB wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Good Morning Jeff and all,
> > >>
> > >> For the most part I do agree that routing policies are implemented
> > >>for the end customer's best interests. Most if not all carriers, I
> > >>believe attempt to perform a good job keeping their tables current and
> > >>clean. However, there are some that do route dark addresses either
> > >>unknowingly or possibly just because there is too much to do and thus
> > >>something needs to go undone. Therefor, it becomes a cost of doing
> > >>business and it impacts all users on the Internet. It has been my
> > >>experience that about 90% of the dark space email I receive (either
> > >>originating or directing the reader to a dark address) uses an APNIC
> > >>allocated address for some reason, thus my proposal to APNIC.
> > >>
> > >> Getting back to your statement that "If they (ISPs) do and it
> > >>becomes known they will not be in business very long.", I will use the
> > >>illustrative example I have used before.....
> > >>
> > >> =========
> > >> 08/16/04 07:07:39 Fast traceroute 222.233.52.27
> > >> Trace 222.233.52.27 ...
> > >> 1 10.84.224.1 19ms 12ms 13ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >> 2 68.2.4.73 12ms 11ms 10ms TTL: 0
> > >> (ip68-2-4-73.ph.ph.cox.net ok)
> > >> 3 68.2.0.37 12ms 12ms 14ms TTL: 0
> > >> (ip68-2-0-37.ph.ph.cox.net ok)
> > >> 4 68.2.0.113 14ms 14ms 15ms TTL: 0
> > >> (ip68-2-0-113.ph.ph.cox.net ok)
> > >> 5 68.2.14.13 48ms 15ms 14ms TTL: 0
> > >> (chnddsrc02-gew0303.rd.ph.cox.net ok)
> > >> 6 68.1.0.168 17ms 28ms 16ms TTL: 0
> > >> (chndbbrc02-pos0101.rd.ph.cox.net ok)
> > >> 7 64.154.128.29 14ms 17ms 28ms TTL: 0
> > >> (p1-0.hsa1.phx1.bbnplanet.net ok)
> > >> 8 4.68.113.253 17ms 14ms 18ms TTL: 0
> > >> (so-6-2-0.mp2.Phoenix1.Level3.net ok)
> > >> 9 64.159.1.30 4ms 26ms 24ms TTL: 0
> > >> (as-0-0.bbr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net ok)
> > >> 10 209.247.9.214 25ms 27ms 26ms TTL: 0
> > >> (so-7-0-0.gar1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net ok)
> > >> 11 4.68.127.138 26ms 23ms 25ms TTL: 0
> > >> (att-level3-oc48.LosAngeles1.Level3.net ok)
> > >> 12 12.123.29.6 24ms 27ms 27ms TTL: 0
> > >> (tbr2-p012101.la2ca.ip.att.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
> > >> 13 12.123.199.229 26ms 25ms 22ms TTL: 0
> > >> (gar1-p3100.lsnca.ip.att.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
> > >> 14 12.119.138.38 25ms 24ms 25ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >> 15 210.180.97.21 1091ms 1219ms 828ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >> 16 210.220.73.2 105ms 86ms 50ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >> 17 211.108.63.146 96ms 96ms 76ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >> 18 221.139.106.58 93ms 63ms 67ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >> 19 222.233.52.27 75ms 94ms 76ms TTL: 49 (No rDNS)
> > >> ======
> > >>
> > >> Consider this traceroute that I took several minutes ago, Hop #14 is
> > >>ATT, Hop #15 is dark space. Please check the date (against the date of
> > >>the traceroute later in this email trail), ATT has been routing dark
> > >>space for about 3 weeks now, and they have been notified. Is this an
> > >>isolated instance? Maybe (hopefully). But they have not been very
> > >>proactive on this one particular address.
> > >>
> > >> It is also interesting to note the infrastructure this has from hop
> > >>#15 through hop #19. They are all dark address space, all APNIC IP
> > >>addresses. I have published this before several weeks ago and nothing
> > >>has happened.
> > >>
> > >> It has been estimated by various studies that dark space accounts
> > >>for upwards of 15% of Internet traffic. Some one is routing this
> > >>traffic - it has an Internet presence. 15% is not insignificant.
> > >>Apparently people have found it useful to allocate to themselves
> > >>whatever space they feel they need. In finding a way to have it routed,
> > >>essentially provides them with a web presence that does not violate any
> > >>ISP's APU, since they are not connected in the normal fashion.
> > >>
> > >> I submit that ATT is routing dark address space, nothing is being
> > >>done about it, it is probably being treated as a cost of doing business,
> > >>and ATT has been around for a very long time. I do not know the
> > >>particulars in this specific instance, all I can do is look at the
> > >>traceroute and the period of time this instance has been active and come
> > >>to the obvious conclusions. What recourse does APNIC have in regaining
> > >>control of their unallocated IP address that is currently being used?
> > >>ATT is essentially providing value to the people using this dark address
> > >>space, at the expense of everyone.
> > >>
> > >> It might be interesting to find out the following:
> > >>
> > >> - Through a random survey of unallocated APNIC addresses, how many
> > >> are being used?
> > >> - Who is routing them?
> > >> - How did they become to be routed?
> > >> - What process can be created to have the addresses returned to
> > >> APNIC's control?
> > >> - What can be done to prevent their routing in the first place?
> > >>
> > >>Regards,
> > >>Gordon
> > >>
> > >>Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Phillip and all,
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't for a moment believe that many ISP's are going to implement
> > >>>any routing policy they did not feel was in their customers best interests
> > >>>as well as had a hand in determining. If they do and it becomes known
> > >>>they will not be in business very long.
> > >>>
> > >>>Philip Smith wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Hi Izumi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>At 16:02 10/08/2004 +0900, Izumi Okutani wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>I have one additional question, which may be more appropriate to ask
> > >>>>>APNIC Secretariat - would NIRs be expected to implement the same
> > >>>>>policy once this reaches consensus? I am asking this since we have our
> > >>>>>own policy making process within JP, and our process differs depending
> > >>>>>on what is expected on NIRs.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>I think everyone has to implement this policy if it reaches consensus. It
> > >>>>will only work if the RIRs & NIRs basically decide what the ISPs can and
> > >>>>cannot route.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>And if it is approved in the AP region, it has to be approved in the other
> > >>>>three RIR regions to have any impact at all; unless the proposed policy is
> > >>>>intended to be binding on all routes the member ISPs provide transit to.
> > >>>>Otherwise the miscreants which this policy proposal seeks to freeze out of
> > >>>>the Internet will simply go outside of the region.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>As I see it, it will change the membership agreement each LIR has with
> > >>>>APNIC, and the membership of the NIR have with the NIR. Basically giving
> > >>>>the RIRs and NIRs internationally binding legal powers to influence their
> > >>>>members' businesses. A pretty fundamental change in APNIC's existing
> > >>>>address assignment policy, never mind uncharted waters for international
> > >>>>law enforcement wrt the Internet. Which laws does APNIC as an Australian
> > >>>>organisation use to stop an ISP in another country from "illegally
> > >>>>announcing address space"? I'm no lawyer, but seeing the ICC being ignored
> > >>>>by some countries doesn't give me much reason for optimism.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>philip
> > >>>>--
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>Izumi
> > >>>>>JPNIC
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>From: APNIC Secretariat <secretariat at apnic dot net>
> > >>>>>Subject: [sig-policy] Forwarded reply from Gordon Bader
> > >>>>>Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:16:57 +1000
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>The email below is forwarded to the list on behalf of Gordon Bader. He is
> > >>>>>>now subscribed to the list.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>regards,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>APNIC Secretariat.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 07:15:16 -0700
> > >>>>>>>From: GB <gbader at cox dot net>
> > >>>>>>>To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
> > >>>>>>>CC: secretariat at apnic dot net, sig-policy at apnic dot net,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>sig-policy-chair at apnic dot net
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Subject: Re: [sig-policy] SIG Policy Proposal 'Preventing the routing of
> > >>>>>>>'dark' address space
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Good Morning Mr. Okutani and APNIC Secretariat,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thank you for reading the proposal and your associated questions on
> > >>>>>>>the sig-policy proposal
> > >>>>>>>'Preventing the routing of 'dark' address space'. I have responded in
> > >>>>>>>line using the tag [Response]
> > >>>>>>>below for each one of your concerns. I have also included an example.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Izumi Okutani wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>Dear Gordon/APNIC secretariat,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>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.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>[Response] - Yes, I am essentially proposing the first at ALL levels of
> > >>>>>>>routing. I do understand that
> > >>>>>>>this would be larger than APNIC's reach and would need to be applied
> > >>>>>>>Internet wide. I am proposing
> > >>>>>>>this be applied to ALL who receive their IP address allocations from
> > >>>>>>>APNIC directly or indirectly.
> > >>>>>>>Included within the proposal are the Tier 1 backbone providers as well
> > >>>>>>>as individual ISP. I have
> > >>>>>>>attached an example of what I am proposing below.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>However I do believe that it would be within APNIC's address policy
> > >>>>>>>because if APNIC
> > >>>>>>>was able to initially assign the IP address space to begin with, APNIC
> > >>>>>>>should be able to
> > >>>>>>>remove the address space it originally assigned.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>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.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>[Response] - The proposal I have submitted proposes the loss of IP
> > >>>>>>>address space at the point
> > >>>>>>>where routing "drops off" in to "dark space". Let me provide an actual
> > >>>>>>>traceroute. As of a couple
> > >>>>>>>of minutes ago, node 19 222.233.52.27 was still active. That is 6 days
> > >>>>>>>after this traceroute was
> > >>>>>>>taken.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>I received an "Failure to Delivery Notice" for an email that I had not
> > >>>>>>>sent, that was a item of SPAM
> > >>>>>>>that directed the reader to the IP address 222.233.52.27.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>===============
> > >>>>>>> 07/31/04 16:12:27 Fast traceroute 222.233.52.27
> > >>>>>>> Trace 222.233.52.27 ...
> > >>>>>>> 1 10.84.224.1 12ms 13ms 17ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >>>>>>> 2 68.2.4.73 11ms 13ms 13ms TTL: 0
> > >>>>>>>(ip68-2-4-73.ph.ph.cox.net ok)
> > >>>>>>> 3 68.2.0.37 14ms 11ms 12ms TTL: 0
> > >>>>>>>(ip68-2-0-37.ph.ph.cox.net ok)
> > >>>>>>> 4 68.2.0.113 12ms 14ms 15ms TTL: 0
> > >>>>>>>(ip68-2-0-113.ph.ph.cox.net ok)
> > >>>>>>> 5 68.2.14.13 14ms 16ms 14ms TTL: 0
> > >>>>>>>(chnddsrc02-gew0303.rd.ph.cox.net ok)
> > >>>>>>> 6 68.1.0.168 14ms 15ms 13ms TTL: 0
> > >>>>>>>(chndbbrc02-pos0101.rd.ph.cox.net ok)
> > >>>>>>> 7 64.154.128.29 17ms 15ms 16ms TTL: 0
> > >>>>>>>(p1-0.hsa1.phx1.bbnplanet.net ok)
> > >>>>>>> 8 4.68.113.253 14ms 17ms 23ms TTL: 0
> > >>>>>>>(so-6-2-0.mp2.Phoenix1.Level3.net ok)
> > >>>>>>> 9 64.159.1.30 25ms 25ms 22ms TTL: 0
> > >>>>>>>(as-0-0.bbr1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net ok)
> > >>>>>>> 10 209.247.9.214 28ms * 25ms TTL: 0
> > >>>>>>>(so-7-0-0.gar1.LosAngeles1.Level3.net ok)
> > >>>>>>> 11 4.68.127.134 25ms 25ms 31ms TTL: 0
> > >>>>>>>(att-level3-oc48.LosAngeles1.Level3.net ok)
> > >>>>>>> 12 12.123.29.2 28ms 27ms 23ms TTL: 0
> > >>>>>>>(tbr1-p014001.la2ca.ip.att.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
> > >>>>>>> 13 12.123.199.185 25ms 23ms 26ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >>>>>>> 14 12.119.138.38 25ms 25ms 24ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >>>>>>> 15 210.180.97.21 181ms 105ms 161ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >>>>>>> 16 211.108.90.2 107ms 162ms 140ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >>>>>>> 17 211.108.63.138 145ms 171ms 146ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >>>>>>> 18 221.139.106.66 130ms 146ms 145ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
> > >>>>>>> 19 222.233.52.27 141ms 145ms 94ms TTL: 49 (No rDNS)
> > >>>>>>>=================
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>You will notice that starting with node 15 the address space is un
> > >>>>>>>allocated. Thus the last
> > >>>>>>>legal space rests with node 14 which now has a problem with their
> > >>>>>>>routing tables.
> > >>>>>>>I am proposing that notification be given (in this case) to
> > >>>>>>>12.119.138.38 "holder" to repair their
> > >>>>>>>routing tables. If not acted upon within a reasonable period of time
> > >>>>>>>and possibly a number
> > >>>>>>>of similiar instances, then the "holder" of the 12.0.0.0 -
> > >>>>>>>12.255.255.255 address space loose
> > >>>>>>>their IP assignment. Yes, I am proposing that in this example, the
> > >>>>>>>POSSIBLY that after 7 days of
> > >>>>>>>inaction after being notified, AT&T WorldNet Services would loose their
> > >>>>>>>IP allocation,
> > >>>>>>>if they received their IP allocation from APNIC. In this case they did
> > >>>>>>>not, and that is why I
> > >>>>>>>do understand that this would need to be adopted Internet wide. I am
> > >>>>>>>also interested to see how
> > >>>>>>>long 222.233.52.27 remains active after this email is sent.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>How might this work. There are a number of SPAM services that receive
> > >>>>>>>spam from their users.
> > >>>>>>>They parse the spam extracting the possible originating IP addresses of
> > >>>>>>>the spam, AND the IP addresses
> > >>>>>>>the SPAM is directing the reader to. I am proposing to take the
> > >>>>>>>extracted address the SPAM reader
> > >>>>>>>is sent to, traceroute it, determine the last legal IP address on the
> > >>>>>>>route and send an automated
> > >>>>>>>notification to that service provider, whom ever that may be.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>With respect to the question of "removal" of IP address space, I would
> > >>>>>>>propose the logical loss
> > >>>>>>>of routing to the IP address space in question.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>I hope I have answered your questions.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Thank you very much,
> > >>>>>>>Gordon
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>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
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix dot netcom dot com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827