I do not support this proposal, on the basis that it seems its intent is
to extend the scope of the APNIC whois database well beyond its
traditional scope.
I believe the purpose of the APNIC database is to assert the
authorisation of an assignee to use specified IP addresses, for purposes
such as route validations or route dispute resolutions. The database
only relates to the network layer identifiers that APNIC is chartered to
administrate (i.e. IP addresses and AS numbers).
APNIC does not administrate or register the use of transport-layer
identifiers (TCP or UDP ports); APNIC does not have the charter to state
that certain TCP/UDP ports have been duly assigned and provide any
authority for their use. Also, standard Internet routing does not
function on the basis of TCP/UDP ports.
I therefore feel that any recording of any TCP/UDP port assignments
would be outside of the scope of APNIC's business.
Regards,
David Woodgate
On 1/03/2015 11:30 PM, 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 <o...@delong.com
<mailto:o...@delong.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 <myama...@gmail.com
<mailto:myama...@gmail.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 <myama...@gmail.com
<mailto:myama...@gmail.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
hir...@inetcore.com <mailto:hir...@inetcore.com>
Tomohiro Fujisaki
fujis...@syce.net <mailto:fujis...@syce.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@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* 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: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
