Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-110: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycas
We had an opinion collection meeting with our community in Japan, and
would like to share our input.
There is comment from prop-110-v001 based discussion because meeting
hold before v002 proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[prop-110] Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure
How this proposal may help:
- It would be good to have any space based on functions
Effectiveness of the proposal:
- There should be multiple candidates for DNS resolvers, therefore
multiple prefixes should be reserved instead of a single prefix.
Read: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-110
Concern about its effect:
- There was a software which was designed to send all bug reports to
this address.
Expanding the use of this space:
- Please clarify who will use this space for what purpose.
(if the use will not be limited to anycast DNS)
- This proposal should be withdrawn if this is not for anycast, as it
will be a substantial change.
Where to discuss this proposal:
- Since this will be expanding private address space, the decision
should not be made only in the APNIC region, and return the space to
the IANA.
- On the other hand, it is an allocated space to APNIC, which may not
quite fit in to handle it in the IANA.
- It affects vendors in its specifications, please bring it to the
IETF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best regards,
Toshio Tachibana
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Masato Yamanishi
<myamanis at japan-telecom dot com> wrote:
> Dear SIG members
>
> A new version of the proposal "prop-110: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast
> to support DNS Infrastructure" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
>
> Information about earlier versions is available from:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-110
>
> You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
>
> - Do you support or oppose 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?
>
> Regards,
>
> Masato
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> prop-110v002: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS
> Infrastructure
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Proposers: Dean Pemberton, dean at internetnz dot net dot nz
> 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 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 unwanted traffic, primarily
> due to its unauthorised use as private address space [2].
>
> Analysis revealed that, prior to any delegations being made from the
> block, 1.0.0.0/8 attracted an average of 140Mbps - 160Mbps of
> unsolicited incoming traffic as a continuous sustained traffic level,
> with peak bursts of over 800Mbps.
>
> The analysis highlighted individual addresses such as 1.2.3.4 with
> its covering /24 (identified as 1.2.3.0/24) remain in APNIC
> quarantine and it is believed they will not be suitable for normal
> address distribution.
>
> The proposal proposes the use of 1.2.3.0/24 in a context of locally
> scoped infrastructure support for DNS resolvers.
>
> 2. Objective of policy change
> -----------------------------
>
> As the addresses attract extremely high levels of unsolicited
> incoming traffic, the block has 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.
>
> The objective of this proposal is to permit the use 1.2.3.0/24 as a
> anycast addresses to be used in context of scoped routing to support
> the deployment of DNS resolvers. It is noted that as long as
> providers who use this address use basic route scope limitations, the
> side effect of large volumes of unsolicited incoming traffic would
> be, to some extent mitigated down to manageable levels.
>
>
> 3. Situation in other regions
> -----------------------------
>
> Improper use of this address space is a globally common issue.
> However the block is delegated only APNIC and so therefor, no other
> RIR has equivalent policy to deal with the situation.
>
>
> 4. Proposed policy solution
> ---------------------------
>
> This proposal recommends that the APNIC community agree to assign
> 1.2.3.0/24 to the APNIC Secretariat for use in the context of locally
> scoped infrastructure support for DNS resolvers.
>
> At some future point there is nothing restricting an RFC being
> written to include this prefix into the special-purpose IPv4
> registry. However, at this time it is considered sufficient for the
> APNIC community to designate this prefix to be managed as a common
> anycast address for locally scoped infrastructure support for DNS
> resolvers.
>
>
> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
> -----------------------------
>
> Advantages
>
> - It will make use of this otherwise unusable address space.
> - DNS operators will have an easy-to-remember address they can use to
> communicate with their users (e.g. configure "1.2.3.4" as your DNS
> resolver")
>
>
> Disadvantages
>
> - The address attracts a large volume of unsolicited incoming
> traffic, and leakage of an anycast advertisement outside of a
> limited local scope may impact on the integrity of the DNS service
> located at the point associated with the scope leakage. Some
> operators with high capacity infrastructure may see this as a
> negligible issue.
>
> 6. Impact on APNIC
> ------------------
>
> Although this space will no longer be available for use by a single
> APNIC/NIR account holder, the proposal would result in benefit for
> all APNIC community members, as well as the communities in other
> regions.
>
>
>
> 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://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
>