[sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Dear SIG members, The proposal "prop-132-v001: AS0 for Bogons" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting at APNIC 48 in Chiang Mai, Thailand on Thursday, 12 September 2019. We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list b

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

IMHO, while I’m perfectly fine with APNIC administering this and maintaining the ROAs, etc., I believe that the decision to allocate AS0 to this purpose and documentation of this intent should be done through the IETF and be documented in an STD or RFC. I support the idea, but I believe the pro

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Hi Owen, Thanks for your response, sorry for replying late though. IMO, IETF has done its part already. RFC6483 defines the term “Disavowal of Routing Origination”. “A ROA is a positive attestation that a prefix holder has authorized an AS to originate a route for this prefix into the inter-doma

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Hi Aftab-bhai, While I totally support the proposal, I think this will only identify BOGON/Martian routes in AP region and so all the other regions must do the same to make the idea fully functional. By that, I indicate of a global policy, may be at the NRO level. But anyway, at least it can be st

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Hi Aftab-bhai, While I totally support the proposal, I think this will only isolate BOGON/Martian routes in AP region and so all the other regions must do the same to make the idea fully functional. By that, I indicate of a global policy, may be at the NRO level. But anyway, at least it can be sta

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by IANA rather than by an RIR from what you quoted. Any reason APNIC feels the need to usurp that process? Owen > On Aug 14, 2019, at 21:58 , Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > > Hi Owen, > Thanks for your response, sorry for replying late though.

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Hi Owen, On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by IANA rather than > by an RIR from what you quoted. > Yes, for resources not allocated by IANA or marked as Reserved But IANA has nothing to do with resources allocated to RIRs

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

On 8/15/2019 12:19 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: Hi Owen, On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong > wrote: Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by IANA rather than by an RIR from what you quoted. Yes, for resources not allocated by IANA or m

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Since we are talking about bigots, other than Unallocated space in RIR inventory, I’m not sure how you would consider a bogota to be within any particular RIRs jurisdiction. As such, I was under the impression from the policy proposal that the intent was for APNIC to issue AS0 ROAs for global b

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Hi Andrew, > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by IANA rather >> than by an RIR from what you quoted. >> > > Yes, for resources not allocated by IANA or marked as Reserved But IANA > has nothing to do with resources al

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Hello! On 8/15/2019 5:00 PM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote: Hi Andrew, On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: Looks like IETF wants the global BOGONs to be attested by IANA rather than by an RIR from what you quoted. Yes, for resources no

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Hi Owen, Just to give you an example, all unallocated address space from 103/8 are under APNIC's management unless they were transferred to other RIRs and then reclaimed by that RIR due to whatever reason. This policy covers all unallocated address space under APNIC's management and asking APNIC to

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Hi Andrew, Good suggestion, it makes more sense and very well noted. I will made the change accordingly. Let me see if any other suggestions comes out later today otherwise I will update the policy. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:13 AM Andrew Dul wrote: > Hello! > On 8/

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

I don’t tend to regard unallocated as “bogons”, but sure, if this proposal is strictly about unallocated space in the APNIC free pool(s), then I have no problem with that. Owen > On Aug 15, 2019, at 17:15 , Aftab Siddiqui wrote: > > Hi Owen, > Just to give you an example, all unallocated addr

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Hi Owen, On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 7:10 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > I don’t tend to regard unallocated as “bogons”, > Why is that? RFC3871 - Bogon: A "Bogon" (plural: "bogons") is a packet with an IP source address in an address block not yet allocated by IANA or

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Fair enough. I tend to think of Bogons as “Those addresses which shouldn’t be advertised _EVER_” (e.g. 10.0.0.0/8) while I tend to think of Unallocated as being more transient in nature. I realize that makes 224.0.0.0/4 classification as a bogon a bit of a grey area, while including all unalloc

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Ok I get your point now. During my ops days I used to manage "Martians" (reserved blocks/special use blocks) and "Bogons" (unallocated address blocks) prefix filters :) Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:09 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > Fair enough. I tend to think of Bogons as “T

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team. I would like to share a feedback in our community for prop-132, based on a meeting we organized on 21th Aug to discuss these proposals. Please note that these discussion is based on the first Proposal, prop-132-0001

Re: [sig-policy] prop-132-v001 AS0 for Bogons

Thank you very much Satoru-san for your report from the Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team Cordialement, ___ Bertrand Cherrier Micro Logic Systems https://www.mls.nc Tél : +687 24 99 24 VoIP : 65 24 99 24 SAV : +687 36 67 76 (58F/min) On 2 Sep 2019, at