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.
Many participants basically support this proposal. But If an incorrect ROA is created due to a miss-operation or unexpected trouble, not only the quality of the network will be degraded, but it may adversely affect the deployment of RPKI in this community. We hope careful deployment such as having a sufficient test period if this proposal reach consensus. Best Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki JPOPF-ST 2019年8月9日(金) 19:02 Sumon Ahmed Sabir <sasa...@gmail.com>: > > > 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 > before the meeting. > > The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is an > important part of the policy development process. We encourage 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? > > Information about this proposal is available at: > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-132 > > Regards > > Sumon, Bertrand, Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-132-v001: AS0 for Bogons > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: Aftab Siddiqui > aftab.siddi...@gmail.com > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > Bogons are defined in RFC3871, A "Bogon" (plural: "bogons") is a packet > with an IP source address in an address block not yet allocated by IANA > or the Regional Internet Registries (ARIN, RIPE NCC, APNIC, AFRINIC and > LACNIC) as well as all addresses reserved for private or special use by > RFCs. See [RFC3330] and [RFC1918]. > > As of now, there are 287 IPv4 bogons and 73 IPv6 bogons in the global > routing table. In the past, several attempts have been made to filter > out such bogons through various methods such as static filters and updating > them occasionally but it is hard to keep an up to date filters, > TeamCymru and > CAIDA provides full bogon list in text format to update such filters. > TeamCymru > also provides bogon BGP feed where they send all the bogons via a BGP > session > which then can be discarded automatically. Beside all these attempts the > issue > of Bogon Advertisement hasn't be resolved so far. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > The purpose of creating AS0 (zero) ROAs for unallocated address space by > APNIC > is to resolve the issue of Bogon announcement. When APNIC issues an AS0 > ROA for > unallocated address space in its bucket then it will be marked as > “Invalid” if > someone tries to advertise the same address space. > > Currently, in the absence of any ROA, these bogons are marked as > “NotFound”. Since > many operators have implemented ROV and either planning or already > discarding “Invalid” > then all the AS0 ROAs which APNIC will create for unallocated address > space will be > discarded as well. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > No such policy in any region at the moment. > > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > APNIC will create AS0(zero) ROAs for all the unallocated address space > in its bucket > (IPv4 and IPv6). Any resource holder can create AS0 (zero) ROAs for the > resources they > have under their account. > > A ROA is a positive attestation that a prefix holder has authorised an > AS to originate a > route for this prefix whereas, a ROA for the same prefixes with AS0 > (zero) origin shows > negative intent from the resource holder that they don't want to > advertise the prefix(es) > at this point but they are the rightful custodian. > > Only APNIC has the authority to create ROAs for address space not yet > allocated to the members > and only APNIC can issue AS0 (zero) ROAs. Once they ROA is issued and > APNIC wants to allocate > the address space to its member, simply they can revoke the ROA and > delegate the address space > to members. (this proposal doesn't formulate operational process). > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > Advantages: > Those implementing ROV globally and discarding the invalids will be able > to discard bogons from > APNIC region automatically. > > Disadvantages: > No apparent disadvantage > > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------- > No impact to APNIC or respective NIR resource holders not implementing > ROV. Those implementing > ROV and discarding the invalids will not see any bogons in their routing > table. > > > 7. References > ------------------------------------------------------- > RFC6483 - https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6483.txt > RFC6491 - https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6491.txt > RFC7607 - https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7607.txt > * 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 https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
