[sig-policy] Discussions on Public Safety and IP Address WHOIS Accuracy in JP (Re: Public Safety and Accuracy of IP Address WHOIS - at RIPE 73)
Dear Colleagues, I would like to share discussions in the Japanese community on improving accuracy of IP Address WHOIS. We had discussions at JPOPM31 Meeting in December and on the dedicated mailing list, based on presentation by FBI (as in APNIC42 and in ARIN38). http://www.jpopf.net/JPOPM31Program?action=AttachFile=view=8-2_whois_accuracy.pdf This was facilitated by Policy WG, which consists by volunteer members of our community. Comments expressed by the Japanese community on WHOIS accuracy discussions are as below. I hope this could serve as a reference for discussions in the APNIC community. Comment 1 To have dedicated POC in WHOIS for LEAs: - Either to create a dedicated POC for LEAs, or clearly state handling requests from LEAs as the role of POCs - This may raise the priority in handling requests/maintaining up to date POCs Comment 2 Provide dedicated POCs for LEAs separately from WHOIS which is public Comment 3 Rather than to address WHOIS accuracy on its own, consider measures comprehensively with IRR and/or Routing Database - There is low incentive to maintain up to date WHOIS objects on its own Comment 4 As an incentive to maintain accuracy, publicly mark objects which are not updated for a certain period. This idea came from a practice in JPIRR. Objects not updated after a certain period are automatically deleted. - Unlike IRR data, people may not are even if objects are automatically deleted in WHOIS. (As there is little practical operational effect without a WHOIS object, whereas missing IRR objects may affect routing) - Therefore came up with an idea that instead of deleting not updated objects, publicly mark those objects in WHOIS. Rationales as below: - Maintaining up to date objects for WHOIS is defined under the contract between APNIC and account holders. However in reality, the information is not maintained up to date, which indicates a need for some incentives or penalties - Incentives to maintain accurate information is important. OTOH, Routing DB/IRR may not sufficiently serve the purpose. Information registered in peering DBs is not always accurate, and its usage is different from WHOIS. (Frequency of updates differ by organisations, it is dedicated for peering) Information are often not updated in RADB and other IRRs and there is no properly defined mechanism to delete data. Duplicate registrations with different information are often found. - Publicly marking objects not updated over a certain period may create some incentives to maintain accurate information. - Additional measures such as informing LIRs with over certain % of un-updated objects and/or putting some penalties may be considered as an option. Regards, Izumi --- Izumi Okutani Policy Liaison Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC) On 2016/10/25 22:47, Paul Wilson wrote: Dear Colleagues, For those who took an interest in the presentation on “Public Safety and Accuracy of IP Address WHOIS” which was given at APNIC 42 in Colombo, there has been a similar presentation today at the RIPE 73 meeting in Madrid. In this case a much more detailed case study was given, to show the concerns of the law enforcement community. Presentation file is here: https://ripe73.ripe.net/presentations/54-Presentation_RIPE_NCC_73_Madrid_-_Whois_Accuracy_and_Public_Safety-MOUNIER.pdf Video archive is here: https://ripe73.ripe.net/archives/video/1435 All the best, Paul. -- Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC d...@apnic.net <mailto:d...@apnic.net> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
On 2015/02/27 18:16, Mark Tinka wrote: On 27/Feb/15 10:58, Usman Latif wrote: I think organisations that have obtained portable address ranges from RIRs should have the liberty to use public ASNs from day one (if they want to) regardless of whether they are single homed or multihomed. Also, a lot of times organisations get more than one Internet link (for redundancy etc) from the same provider so theoretically they are not multihomed as they use the same provider. BGP does not concern itself with how many links it is running over. Networks on the Internet have no idea how many links exist between you and your service provider(s). All they see is the NLRI your network purports to originate. So really, being multi-homed has little bearing on how many links you have to one or more providers, but rather with how many different providers you share your routing policy with. In BGP's mind (and in the classic definition of multi-homing as our community understands it today), you could have 100x links to the same ISP, but to the world, you still appear to be behind a single ISP, not behind 100x links. Indeed. If we look at the definition of multihoming on APNIC Guangliang have shared on this mailing list, it doesn't specify how many links and it defines criteria based on ASNs. http://www.apnic.net/policy/asn-policy#3.4 3.4 Multihomed A multi-homed AS is one which is connected to more than one other AS. An AS also qualifies as multihomed if it is connected to a public Internet Exchange Point. In the ASN request form, you will be asked to provide the estimate ASN implementation date, two peer AS numbers and their contact details. It is also acceptable if your network only connect to an IXP. Izumi * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Hi Aftab, On 2015/02/27 14:19, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: Hi Izumi, Thanks. Helpful to know and that's consistent with how we handle ASN requests in JPNIC. w.r.t JPNIC, do they ask for the details of those ASN (along with contact details) with whom applicant is planning to multi-home in future? Do they have any mechanism to check the authenticity of those ASN and contact details provided? We would know which organization the ASNs are assigned to, as those upstream ASNs are already used. We don't have a formal mechanism to check the authenticity of the POCs but usually check the e-mails provided are reachable. We would find it suspicious if the domain name of the e-mail provided is different from the domain used for the organization or free e-mail accounts. It's not formal in the sense that we request upstream ASNs to register a POC. I suppose therefore you can still forge domain name, etc, but it is sufficient in our case to give credibility above a certain level. Regards, Izumi * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
[sig-policy] Fwd: [IANAxfer@apnic] Invitation to Web Meeting - CRISP Update for APNIC Community - 30 December
Dear Colleagues, FYI, for those who are interested in the IANA stewardship transition proposal to be submitted to ICG from the number resources communities. There will be webinar a organized on 30th Dec, with details to join in the e-mail below. The latest draft proposal from CRISP Team: https://www.nro.net/news/first-draft-proposal-of-the-internet-number-community-for-the-iana-stewardship-coordination-group The deadline for providing feedback: 5 January 2015 References --- ICG request for proposals: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP Team) https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated-rir-iana-stewardship-proposal-team-crisp-team Regards, Izumi Okutani Forwarded Message Subject: [IANAxfer@apnic] Invitation to Web Meeting - CRISP Update for APNIC Community - 30 December Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 00:52:31 + From: Craig Ng cr...@apnic.net To: ianax...@apnic.net ianax...@apnic.net The APNIC CRISP team members would like to invite the Asia Pacific community to a web meeting on Tuesday 30 December, to: * give you an update on the work done by the CRISP team; * explain to you about the draft proposal of the Internet number community for the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG); * receive your feedback on the draft proposal; * answer your questions about the draft proposal. The key points of the draft proposal are: * ICANN will continue to be the operator of the IANA function * there will be a Service Level Agreement between the RIRs and ICANN, for number resources * there will be a Review Committee with representation from each RIR region, to advise the NRO Executive Council about ICANN's performance of the Service Level Agreement. The web meeting will take place on Tuesday 30 December 2014 at UTC +03:30. As an indication, this would be: 09:00 in Delhi 09:30 in Dhaka 11:30 in Singapore, Beijing 12:30 in Tokyo 14:30 in Melbourne, Sydney 16:30 in Auckland This meeting is open to everyone. You can participate either through voice or text communication (or if you prefer, just listen to the conversation), using the WebEx facility below. We look forward to you joining this meeting. From - APNIC CRISP team members: Izumi Okutani (JPNIC; Chair of CRISP team) Dr Govind (NIXI) Craig Ng (APNIC non-voting staff representative) -- CRISP Update for APNIC community Tuesday, 30 December 2014 1:30 pm | Australia Eastern Time (Brisbane, GMT+10:00) | 1 hr Join WebEx meeting https://apnic.webex.com/apnic/j.php?MTID=mdc1dd1ce7167e8030dc63ed0be591074 Meeting number: 865 608 713 Meeting password:20141230 Join by phone 1-866-469-3239 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada) 1-650-429-3300 Call-in toll number (US/Canada) Access code: 865 608 713 Global call-in numbers https://apnic.webex.com/apnic/globalcallin.php?serviceType=MCED=320365262; tollFree=1 | Toll-free calling restrictions http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf Add this meeting https://apnic.webex.com/apnic/j.php?MTID=m835d1e8ca072f5d7b38f5bc34db84e72 to your calendar. Can't join the meeting? Contact support. https://apnic.webex.com/apnic/mc IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that this WebEx service allows audio and other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded, discuss your concerns with the host or do not join the session. WebEx_Meeting.ics Description: Binary data ___ IANAxfer mailing list ianax...@apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
