Time to Remove Filters for Previously Unallocated IPv4 /8s
RFC 6441

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'It has been common for network administrators to filter IP traffic from and BGP prefixes of unallocated IPv4 address space. Now that there are no longer any unallocated IPv4 /8s, this practise is more complicated, fragile, and expensive. Network administrators are advised to remove filters based on the registration status of the address space.

This document explains why any remaining packet and BGP prefix filters for unallocated IPv4 /8s should now be removed on border routers and documents those IPv4 unicast prefixes that should not be routed across the public Internet. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.')

[Ballot comment]
If there are no more unallocated /8s, I cannot understand how a filter for unallocated /8s would be in any way a problem.

The second paragraph of the Abstract and the Introduction is, therefore, confusing.

I think this could be clarified in terms of the language in the first paragraph about "unallocated address space." Or you could use the language of section 3.2.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Time to Remove Filters for Previously Unallocated IPv4 /8s) to BCP


The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
(grow) to consider the following document:
- 'Time to Remove Filters for Previously Unallocated IPv4 /8s'
  as a BCP

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  It has been common for network administrators to filter IP traffic
  from and BGP prefixes of unallocated IPv4 address space.  Now that
  there are no longer any unallocated IPv4 /8s, this practise is more
  complicated, fragile and expensive.  Network administrators are
  advised to remove filters based on the registration status of the
  address space.

  This document explains why any remaining packet and BGP prefix
  filters for unallocated IPv4 /8s should now be removed on border
  routers and documents those IPv4 unicast prefixes that should not be
  routed across the public Internet.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-no-more-unallocated-slash8s/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-no-more-unallocated-slash8s/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Chris Morrow
yes, read the doc, believe it's ready for IESG.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

I believe it's gotten adequate review and some revision from that review.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

no concerns

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

no concerns

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

consensus seems broad and solid.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

no threats.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

there are (as stated above) 4 Errors reported, for down-ref docs.
Author will catch these at the next revision, expecting some revisions
to come from the iesg review as well.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 1208
(a reference to a glossary, this seems appropriate)

** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2544
(ref to the source of the address block's characterization)

** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3871
(ref to an operational security doc - and a definition of a term)

** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5737
(ref to the source of the address block's characterization)

these seem relevant/proper.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

I have.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

there are none.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.

"It has been common for network administrators to filter IP traffic
from and BGP prefixes of unallocated IPv4 address space. ?Now that
there are no longer any unallocated IPv4 /8s, this practise is more
complicated, fragile and expensive. ?Network administrators are
advised to remove filters based on the registration status of the
address space.

This document explains why any remaining packet and BGP prefix
filters for unallocated IPv4 /8s should now be removed on border
routers and documents those IPv4 unicast prefixes that should not
routed across the public Internet."


Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?

"There were no standout notes in the WG process for this document."

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

"This document covers operational guidance, not code. As such the
are no implementations and this is not a protocol."