draft-ietf-grow-no-more-unallocated-slash8s-00.txt		draft-ietf-grow-no-more-unallocated-slash8s-01.txt
	Network Working Group L. Vegoda		Network Working Group L. Vegoda
	Internet-Draft ICANN		Internet-Draft ICANN
	Intended status: BCP March 12, 2011		Intended status: BCP May 13, 2011
	Expires: September 13, 2011		Expires: November 14, 2011
	Time to Remove Filters for Previously Unallocated IPv4 /8s		Time to Remove Filters for Previously Unallocated IPv4 /8s
	draft-ietf-grow-no-more-unallocated-slash8s-00		draft-ietf-grow-no-more-unallocated-slash8s-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	It has been common for network administrators to filter IP traffic		It has been common for network administrators to filter IP traffic
	coming from unallocated IPv4 address space. Now that there are no		from and BGP prefixes of unallocated IPv4 address space. Now that
	longer any unallocated IPv4 /8s, this practise is more complicated,		there are no longer any unallocated IPv4 /8s, this practise is more
	fragile and expensive. Network administrators are advised to remove		complicated, fragile and expensive. Network administrators are
	filters based on the registration status of the address space.		advised to remove filters based on the registration status of the
			address space.
	This document explains why any remaining filters for unallocated IPv4		This document explains why any remaining packet and BGP prefix
	/8s should now be removed on border routers and documents those IPv4		filters for unallocated IPv4 /8s should now be removed on border
	unicast prefixes that should not be routed across the public		routers and documents those IPv4 unicast prefixes that should not be
	Internet.		routed across the public Internet.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2011.		This Internet-Draft will expire on November 14, 2011.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 18		skipping to change at page 2, line 19
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Traffic Filtering Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Traffic Filtering Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.1. No Longer Filtering Based on Address Registration		3.1. No Longer Filtering Based on Address Registration
	Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.2. Continuing to Filter Traffic from Unallocated IPv4		3.2. Continuing to Filter Traffic from Unallocated IPv4
	Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. Prefixes That Should Not be Routed Across the Internet . . . . 4		4. Prefixes That Should Not be Routed Across the Internet . . . . 4
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	It has been common for network administrators to filter IP traffic		It has been common for network administrators to filter IP traffic
	coming from unallocated IPv4 address space. Now that there are no		from and BGP prefixes of unallocated IPv4 address space. Now that
	longer any unallocated IPv4 /8s, this practise is more complicated,		there are no longer any unallocated IPv4 /8s, this practise is more
	fragile and expensive. Network administrators are advised to remove		complicated, fragile and expensive. Network administrators are
	filters based on the registration status of the address space.		advised to remove filters based on the registration status of the
			address space.
	This document explains why any remaining filters for unallocated IPv4		This document explains why any remaining packet and BGP prefix
	/8s should now be removed on border routers and documents those IPv4		filters for unallocated IPv4 /8s should now be removed on border
	unicast prefixes that should not be routed across the public		routers and documents those IPv4 unicast prefixes that should not be
	Internet.		routed across the public Internet.
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119		document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
	[RFC2119].		[RFC2119].
			Bogons are packets sourced from addresses that have not yet been
			allocated by IANA or the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), or
			addresses reserved for private or special use by RFCs [RFC3871].
			Martians are packets with an altogether bogus (non-registered or ill-
			formed) Internet address [RFC1208]. Bogons are referred to as "Dark
			IP" in some circles.
	3. Traffic Filtering Options		3. Traffic Filtering Options
	3.1. No Longer Filtering Based on Address Registration Status		3.1. No Longer Filtering Based on Address Registration Status
	Network administrators who implemented filters for unallocated IPv4		Network administrators who implemented filters for unallocated IPv4
	/8s did so in the knowledge that those /8s were not a legitimate		/8s did so in the knowledge that those /8s were not a legitimate
	source of traffic on the Internet and that there was a small number		source of traffic on the Internet and that there was a small number
	of filters to implement. Now that there are no longer any		of bogon filters to implement. Now that there are no longer any
	unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s, there will be legitimate Internet		unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s, there will be legitimate Internet
	traffic coming from all unicast /8s that are not reserved for special		traffic coming from all unicast /8s that are not reserved for special
	purposes in an RFC.		purposes in an RFC.
	Removing ingress filters based on the registration status of the IPv4		Removing packet and prefix filters based on the registration status
	address is a simple approach that will avoid blocking legitimate		of the IPv4 address is a simple approach that will avoid blocking
	Internet traffic.		legitimate Internet traffic. Network operators SHOULD remove both
			ingress and egress packet filters as well as BGP prefix filters for
			previously unallocated IPv4 /8s.
	3.2. Continuing to Filter Traffic from Unallocated IPv4 Space		3.2. Continuing to Filter Traffic from Unallocated IPv4 Space
	Some network administrators might want to continue filtering		Some network administrators might want to continue filtering
	unallocated IPv4 addresses managed by the Regional Internet		unallocated IPv4 addresses managed by the RIRs. This requires
	Registries (RIRs). This requires significantly more granular ingress		significantly more granular ingress filters and the highly dynamic
	filters and the highly dynamic nature of the RIRs' address pools		nature of the RIRs' address pools means that filters need to be
	means that filters need to be updated on a daily basis to avoid		updated on a daily basis to avoid blocking legitimate incoming
	blocking legitimate incoming traffic.		traffic.
	4. Prefixes That Should Not be Routed Across the Internet		4. Prefixes That Should Not be Routed Across the Internet
	Network operators who only wish to filter traffic originating from		Network operators who only wish to filter traffic originating from
	addresses that should never be routed across the Internet can deploy		addresses that should never be routed across the Internet, Martians,
	a set of ingress filters designed to block traffic from address		can deploy a set of packet and prefix filters designed to block
	blocks reserved for special purposes. These are:		traffic from address blocks reserved for special purposes. These
			are:
	- 0.0.0.0/8 (Local identification) [RFC1122];		- 0.0.0.0/8 (Local identification) [RFC1122];
	- 10.0.0.0/8 (Private use) [RFC1918];		- 10.0.0.0/8 (Private use) [RFC1918];
	- 127.0.0.0/8 (Loopback) [RFC1122];		- 127.0.0.0/8 (Loopback) [RFC1122];
	- 169.254.0.0/16 (Link local) [RFC3927];		- 169.254.0.0/16 (Link local) [RFC3927];
	- 172.16.0.0/12 (Private use) [RFC1918];		- 172.16.0.0/12 (Private use) [RFC1918];
	skipping to change at page 5, line 13		skipping to change at page 5, line 25
	This document makes no request of IANA.		This document makes no request of IANA.
	7. Normative References		7. Normative References
	[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,		[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
	RFC 1112, August 1989.		RFC 1112, August 1989.
	[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -		[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
	Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.		Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
			[RFC1208] Jacobsen, O. and D. Lynch, "Glossary of networking terms",
			RFC 1208, March 1991.
	[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and		[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
	E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",		E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
	BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.		BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for		[RFC2544] Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
	Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.		Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544, March 1999.
			[RFC3871] Jones, G., "Operational Security Requirements for Large
			Internet Service Provider (ISP) IP Network
			Infrastructure", RFC 3871, September 2004.
	[RFC3927] Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic		[RFC3927] Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
	Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,		Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,
	May 2005.		May 2005.
	[RFC5735] Cotton, M. and L. Vegoda, "Special Use IPv4 Addresses",		[RFC5735] Cotton, M. and L. Vegoda, "Special Use IPv4 Addresses",
	BCP 153, RFC 5735, January 2010.		BCP 153, RFC 5735, January 2010.
	[RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks		[RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks
	Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010.		Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010.
End of changes. 17 change blocks.
	37 lines changed or deleted		56 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/