Re: [sig-policy] New Version of prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed
I think to operators set filters by IP address when they get assumed
attack from outside of their network. At this point, IP address range is
very important. Isn't this common thing????
Please advise me if I fall into a corner case.
Regards,
On 2015/03/01 21:30, Ajay Kumar wrote:
> Personally,I don't see any benefit,which community may be getting after
> accepting this proposal. I don't support this proposal.
> Regards,
> Ajai Kumar
>
> On 24 February 2015 at 22:41, Owen DeLong <owen at delong dot com
> <mailto:owen at delong dot com>> wrote:
>
> I don’t believe the proposal offers enough benefit to be worth what
> implementation would likely
> cost.
>
> First, I am sincerely hoping that CGN is an extremely temporary
> situation. I’m not sure
> it should be worth the effort to recode the registry to support it.
>
> Second, I’m wondering if there’s any real advantage to having this
> level of detail on
> residential subscribers that don’t even get full addresses, since we
> don’t really tend
> to have it for single-address subscribers now.
>
> IMHO, best to just let each ISP keep this information for themselves
> as the relevant contact
> for abuse and such is usually the ISP and not the residential user
> anyway.
>
> Owen
>
>> On Feb 23, 2015, at 10:53 , Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com
>> <mailto:myamanis at gmail dot com>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> And, here is prop-115. No comment has not been made for this proposal.
>>
>> If reached consensus, it may needs significant change for whois
>> database.
>> I just reviewed implementation impact assessment by the Secretariat,
>> and it says it might take more than 6 months.
>> I think same thing will happen for whois database of each NIRs.
>> And if your company have a system linked with APNIC/NIR whois
>> database, it will be impacted also.
>>
>> As Chair, I'm always very neutral for each proposal, including
>> prop-115.
>> However, I would like to emphasis prop-115 should be discussed
>> more widely as it has wide impact.
>> It is very appreciated if you will express your views.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Masato Yamanishi, Policy SIG Chair (Acting)
>>
>>
>> 2015-02-04 14:52 GMT-06:00 Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at gmail dot com
>> <mailto:myamanis at gmail dot com>>:
>>
>> Dear SIG members
>>
>> The Problem statement "Registration of detailed assignment
>> information
>> in whois DB" has been assigned a Policy Proposal number
>> following the
>> submission of a new version sent to the Policy SIG for
>> consideration.
>>
>> The proposal, "prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment
>> information in whois DB" now includes an objective and
>> proposed solution.
>>
>> Information about this and earlier versions is available from:
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-115
>>
>> You are encouraged 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?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Masato
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment information in
>> whois DB
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Proposer: Ruri Hiromi
>> hiromi at inetcore dot com <mailto:hiromi at inetcore dot com>
>>
>> Tomohiro Fujisaki
>> fujisaki at syce dot net <mailto:fujisaki at syce dot net>
>>
>>
>> 1. Problem statement
>> --------------------
>>
>> Recently, there are some cases need to get IP address
>> assignment
>> information in more detail to specify user IP address.
>>
>> With out this information, operators cannot filter out
>> specific
>> address range, and it might lead to 'over-filter' (i.e.
>> filtering
>> whole ISP's address range).
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> 1) 'Port' range information in IPv4
>>
>> ISPs are using 'CGN' or other kinds of IPv4 address
>> sharing
>> technology with assignment of IP address and specified
>> port
>> range to their users.
>>
>> In this case, port information is necessary to specify
>> one user.
>>
>> ex) 192.0.2.24/32 <http://192.0.2.24/32> 1-256 is for
>> HomeA
>> 192.0.2.24/32 <http://192.0.2.24/32> 257-511 is
>> for HomeB
>>
>> or 192.0.2.0/24 <http://192.0.2.0/24> 1-65536 is
>> shared address of ISP-X
>> minimum size is /32
>>
>> 2) address assignment size information in IPv6
>>
>> The IPv6 address assignment size may be different from
>> ISP to
>> ISP, and address ranges in one ISP. Address assignment
>> prefix
>> size will be necessary.
>>
>> ex) 2001:db8:1::0/56 is for HomeA
>> 2001:db8:1:1::0/48 is for HomeB
>>
>> or 2001:db8:1::/36's minimum size is /56
>>
>>
>> 2. Objective of policy change
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> Lots of operators look a record when harmful behavior
>> coming to
>> their network to identify its IP address confirming it can be
>> filtered or not.
>>
>> The goal is providing more specific information to support
>> these
>> actions.
>>
>>
>> 3. Situation in other regions
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> No same regulation/discussion can be seen in other regions.
>>
>>
>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> Provide accurate filtering information generated from
>> whois DB.
>>
>> For IPv4, propose to add 'port range' information to IP
>> address
>> entry.
>>
>> For IPv6, propose to provide 'assignment prefix size'
>> information
>> for specific IPv6 address.
>>
>>
>> 5. Advantages / Disadvantages
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> Advantages:
>>
>> - operators can set filtering by IP address based on correct
>> assignment
>> information base.
>>
>> - users who share same address space can be avoid to be
>> including bulk
>> filtering.
>>
>> Disadvantages:
>>
>> - registration rule will move to more strict manner.
>>
>> - strict watch and control in registration of database records.
>>
>> - additional record or option will be considered.
>>
>> - privilege for withdrawing detailed information will be set
>> for these
>> records.
>>
>>
>> 6. Impact on APNIC
>> ------------------
>>
>> This might be beyond the scope of using whois DB.
>>
>>
>> 7. Other Consideration
>> ----------------------
>>
>> For the security reason, this detailed records may be able
>> to see
>> only by operators.(some kind of user control/privilege
>> setting is
>> needed)
>>
>> For hosting services, /32 in IPv4 and /128 in IPv6
>> registration
>> should be discussed based on its operability and
>> possibility. But a
>> harmful activities to filter by IP addresses are coming
>> from hosting
>> services as well. Here it seemed to be some demands.
>>
>>
>> References
>> ----------
>>
>> TBD
>>
>>
>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
>> policy *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>
--
===================================
株式会社インテック
先端技術研究所 研究開発部
廣海（ひろみ）緑里