[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Proposal: Reclamation of allocated but unrouted IPv4 addresses.

[Jackson Muthili]

Mark,

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 20:04 +0200, Andrew Alston wrote:
> > Hi Jackson
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2011/02/09 7:41 PM, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I have concerns about this policy, since as has been stated in various other
> > >> discussion forums, there are several reasons to have so called "live"
> > >> (non-rfc1918) space that is not announced in the routing tables but is
> > >> actively in use.
> > >
> > > Correct. IXPs are one exception. I am willing to accommodate other
> > > similar cases in the proposal.
> > >
> > I can think of a LOT of exceptions.  Take for example the following (and I
> > admit this is a very specific example, but it highlights the issue)
> >
> > An ISP is running an IRC server, the server has two interfaces, one globally
> > routable for uplinking to the IRC network in question.  One that is ONLY
> > announced to national transits that is the "client" interface and that is
> > actually visible.  This is done to avoid any form of denial of service
> > attack against a commonly attacked service.  The IP space assigned to that
> > "client" segment is DELIBERATELY not announced globally and never will be.
>
> I actually do this with some address space for a particular IRC Network.
> Before I did this - my ISP was badly hit by a DDOS.
>
> > To accommodate this type of behavior on a case by case basis is going to be
> > very difficult, and to attempt to do this narrowly to specific applications
> > would amount to dictating what an ISP can do with their space with regards
> > to their routing.  The  policy would need to be modified to state that
> > limited announcement within a geographic area is permissible irrespective of
> > the reason for it, as it is not up to the RIR to dictate those cases where
> > it is or is not allowed to their client base.
> >
> > >> Also, at which point are you evaluating the routing tables?  I can point to
> > >> several instances where space is "partially" announced (within a geographic
> > >> area, yet not propagated globally).  The space is completely valid and being
> > >> utilized, but factors preclude its global announcement.
> > >
> > > That is why time from issue to announcement has been defined.
> > >
> > The timing is not at issue there, there are many cases where this is a
> > permanent situation.
> >
> > >> This proposal also makes no provision for the handling of so called legacy
> > >> address segments, which would have to be dealt with as a separate issue.
> > >
> > > It handles legacy IPv4.
> > > 2.1 - 2.4 clauses cover for these scenario.
> > > Those are in fact the key targets for the proposal.
> >
> > I have a major problem with this.  Legacy allocations were issued before the
> > RIR's were ever created, and were not bound by the policies that govern the
> > current RIR's.  As such, while the RIR's do control such services as the
> > whois, I believe it would be extremely problematic to attempt to force
> > impose policies on the holders such space.  This has been the subject of
> > much discussion recently on the nanog lists as well.
> >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Jack
>
> Jack - is this policy being sent to all RIR's or just AfriNIC.

Just AfriNIC.

> Where are you geographically based?

In Africa. Whyshould it matter?

> Are you proposing this policy on behalf of someone else or a particular
> entity or is this your own idea?

It is not tied to any entity. Reclaiming unused addresses is for the
good of all.

Jack