Re: [sig-policy] prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APN
Hash: SHA1
I support this proposal.
- -gaurab
On 1/26/14, 1:19 AM, Andy Linton wrote:
> Dear SIG members
>
> The proposal "prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 <http://1.0.0.0/24>
> and 1.1.1.0/24 <http://1.1.1.0/24> to APNIC Labs as Research
> Prefixes" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be
> presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 37 in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia,
> on Thursday, 27 February 2014.
>
> We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing
> list before the meeting.
>
> The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is
> an important part of the policy development process. 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 policy proposals is available from:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/109
>
> Andy, Masato
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 <http://1.0.0.0/24> and 1.1.1.0/24
> <http://1.1.1.0/24> to APNIC Labs as Research Prefixes
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Proposer: Geoff Huston, gih at apnic dot net
> <mailto:gih at apnic dot net>
>
>
> 1. Problem statement --------------------
>
> Network 1 (1.0.0.0/8 <http://1.0.0.0/8>) was allocated to APNIC by
> the IANA on 19 January 2010. In line with standard practice APNIC's
> Resource Quality Assurance activities determined that 95% of the
> address space would be suitable for delegation as it was found to
> be relatively free of unwanted traffic [1].
>
> Testing, conducted by APNIC R&D found that certain blocks within
> Network 1 attract significant amounts of unsolicited incoming
> traffic. [2]
>
> Analysis revealed that, prior to any delegations being made from
> the block, 1.0.0.0/8 <http://1.0.0.0/8> attracted an average of
> 140Mbps - 160Mbps of incoming traffic as a continuous sustained
> traffic level, with peak bursts of over 800Mbps. This analysis
> highlighted the individual addresses 1.1.1.1 as the single address
> with the highest level of unsolicited traffic, and it was
> recommended that the covering /24 prefix, and also 1.1.1.0/24
> <http://1.1.1.0/24> be withheld from allocation pending a decision
> as to the longer term disposition of these address prefixes.
>
> As these addresses attract extremely high levels of unsolicited
> incoming traffic, the blocks have been withheld from allocation
> and periodically checked to determine if the incoming traffic
> profile has altered. None has been observed to date. After four
> years, it now seems unlikely there will ever be any change in the
> incoming traffic profile.
>
> This proposal is intended to define a long term approach to the
> management of 1.0.0.0/24 <http://1.0.0.0/24> and 1.1.1.0/24
> <http://1.1.1.0/24>.
>
>
> 2. Objective of policy change -----------------------------
>
> The objective of this proposal is to allocate 1.0.0.0/24
> <http://1.0.0.0/24> and 1.1.1.0/24 <http://1.1.1.0/24> to APNIC
> Labs, to be used as research prefixes.
>
> 3. Situation in other regions -----------------------------
>
> Other RIRs (notably the RIPE NCC) have used their policy process
> to review self-allocations of number resources to the RIR as a
> means of ensuring transparency of the address allocation process.
> This proposal is consistent with such a practice.
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution ---------------------------
>
> This proposal recommends that the APNIC community agree to
> allocate 1.0.0.0/24 <http://1.0.0.0/24> and 1.1.1.0/24
> <http://1.1.1.0/24> to APNIC Labs as research prefixes. The intent
> is to use these prefixes as passive traffic collectors in order to
> generate a long term profile of unsolicited traffic in the IPv4
> internet that is directed to well known addresses to study various
> aspects of traffic profiles and route scope leakages.
>
> An experiment in gathering a profile of unsolicited traffic
> directed at 1.1.1.0/24 <http://1.1.1.0/24> was started by APNIC
> Labs in 2013, in collaboration with Google. This experiment was set
> up as a temporary exercise to understand the longer term trend of
> the traffic profile associated with this address. Through this
> policy proposal we would like to place this research experiment on
> a more certain longer term foundation.
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages -----------------------------
>
> Advantages
>
> - It will make use of this otherwise unusable address space.
>
> - The research analysis may assist network operators to understand
> the effectiveness of route scoping approaches.
>
> Disadvantages
>
> - The proposer is unclear what the downsides to this action may
> be. The consideration of this proposal by the community may allow
> potential downsides to be identified.
>
>
> 6. Impact on APNIC ------------------
>
> There are no impacts on APNIC.
>
> References ----------
>
> [1] Resource Quality Good for Most of IPv4 Network ?1?
> http://www.apnic.net/publications/press/releases/2010/network-1.pdf
>
> [2] Traffic in Network 1.0.0.0/8 <http://1.0.0.0/8>
> http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-03/net1.html
>
>
>
>
> * 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
>
- --
http://www.gaurab.org.np/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlLlUCwACgkQSo7fU26F3X1h5wCg5PzsrPsBfTsHnYNhofaQphta
BxEAnRuOygNVb7RykD4HZwUk30nO4nxy
=emR0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----