Support this by considering the issue "unsolicited traffic" also thanks for sharing the reference.
Regards // Jahangir
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com> wrote:
In favour of this proposal.Regards,
Aftab A. SiddiquiOn Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com> wrote:I 100% support this proposal....SkeeveSkeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltdskeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com ; www.eintellegonetworks.comPhone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve
twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
The Experts Who The Experts CallJuniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 BrokeringOn Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNICLabs as Research Prefixes" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. Itwill 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 listbefore the meeting.
The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is animportant part of the policy development process. We encourage you toexpress 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 moreeffective?
Information about this policy proposals is available from:
Andy, Masato
------------------------------------------------------------------------prop-109v001: Allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs asResearch Prefixes------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Geoff Huston, gih at apnic dot net
1. Problem statement--------------------
Network 1 (1.0.0.0/8) was allocated to APNIC by the IANA on 19January 2010. In line with standard practice APNIC's Resource QualityAssurance activities determined that 95% of the address space wouldbe suitable for delegation as it was found to be relatively free ofunwanted traffic [1].
Testing, conducted by APNIC R&D found that certain blocks withinNetwork 1 attract significant amounts of unsolicited incomingtraffic. [2]
Analysis revealed that, prior to any delegations being made from theblock, 1.0.0.0/8 attracted an average of 140Mbps - 160Mbps ofincoming traffic as a continuous sustained traffic level, with peakbursts of over 800Mbps. This analysis highlighted the individualaddresses 1.1.1.1 as the single address with the highest level ofunsolicited traffic, and it was recommended that the covering /24prefix, and also 1.1.1.0/24 be withheld from allocation pending adecision as to the longer term disposition of these address prefixes.
As these addresses attract extremely high levels of unsolicitedincoming traffic, the blocks have been withheld from allocation andperiodically checked to determine if the incoming traffic profile hasaltered. None has been observed to date. After four years, it nowseems unlikely there will ever be any change in the incoming trafficprofile.
This proposal is intended to define a long term approach to themanagement of 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24.
2. Objective of policy change-----------------------------
The objective of this proposal is to allocate 1.0.0.0/24 and1.1.1.0/24 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 toreview self-allocations of number resources to the RIR as a means ofensuring transparency of the address allocation process. Thisproposal is consistent with such a practice.
4. Proposed policy solution---------------------------
This proposal recommends that the APNIC community agree to allocate1.0.0.0/24 and 1.1.1.0/24 to APNIC Labs as research prefixes. Theintent is to use these prefixes as passive traffic collectors inorder to generate a long term profile of unsolicited traffic in theIPv4 internet that is directed to well known addresses to studyvarious aspects of traffic profiles and route scope leakages.
An experiment in gathering a profile of unsolicited traffic directedat 1.1.1.0/24 was started by APNIC Labs in 2013, in collaborationwith Google. This experiment was set up as a temporary exercise tounderstand the longer term trend of the traffic profile associatedwith this address. Through this policy proposal we would like toplace this research experiment on a more certain longer termfoundation.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages-----------------------------
Advantages
- It will make use of this otherwise unusable address space.
- The research analysis may assist network operators to understandthe 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 allowpotential 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”
[2] Traffic in Network 1.0.0.0/8
* 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
* 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
* 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
--