In this episode of PING, APNIC Chief Scientist Geoff Huston discusses a problem which cropped up recently with the location tagging of IP addresses seen in the APNIC Labs measurement system. For compiling national/economic and regional statistics, and to understand the experimental distribution into each market segment, Labs relies on the freely available geolocation databases from maxmind.com, and IPinfo.io -which in turn are constructed from a variety of sources such as BGP data, the RIR compiled resource distribution reports, Whois and RDAP declarations and the self-asserted RFC8805 format resource distribution statements that ISPs self publish.

At best this mechanism is an approximation, and with increasing mobility of IP addresses worldwide it has become harder to be confident in the specific location of an IP address you see in the source of an internet dataflow, not the least because of the increasing use of Virtual Private Networks (VPN) and address cloaking methods such as Apple Private Relay, or Cloudflare Warp (although as Geoff notes, these systems do the best they can to account for the geographic distribution of their users in a coarse grained “privacy preserving” manner).

Geoff was contacted by Ben Roberts of Digital Economy Kenya, a new boardmember of AFRINIC and long-time industry analyst and technical advisor. He’d noticed anomolies with the reporting of Internet statistics from Yemen, which simply could not be squared away with the realities of that segment of the Internet Economy. This in turn has lead Geoff to examine in detail the impact of Starlink on distribution of internet traffic, and make adjustments to his measurement Geolocation practices, which will become visible in the labs statistics as the smoothing functions work through the changes.

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Space delivery of Internet has had rapid and sometimes surprising effects on the visibility of Internet worldwide. The orbital mechanics mean that virtually the entire surface of the globe is now fully internet enabled, albiet for a price above many in the local economy. This is altering the fundamentals of how we “see” Internet use and helps explain some of the problems which have been building up in the Labs data model.

Read more about Geolocation and Starlink on the APNIC Blog and on the web:

• Geolocation and Starlink (Geoff Huston, APNIC Blog September 2025)
• RFC8805 A Format for Self-Published IP Geolocation Feeds (IETF RFC website)
• The NRO RIR Statistics on delegations with geographic tagging of the delegated entity (NRO Website)
• Maxmind GeoIP resources (maxmind website)
• IPinfo.io (IPinfo website)
• Labs statistics portal (APNIC Labs website)

RSSAC047 - a document from the Root Server System Advisory Committee proposed a set of metrics to measure DNS root servers, and the DNS root server system as a whole. the document was approved in 2020, and ICANN worked on an implementation of the metrics as code, and a deployment into 20 points of measurement distributed worldwide.

ISC and Verisign, two of the root server operators proposed a review of this measurement and retained SIDN Labs (who are part of the Dutch body operating .NL as a CountryCode Top-Level Domain or ccTLD) to look into how well the measurement was performing.

In this episode of PING, Moritz Mullër from SIDN Labs and Duane Wessels from Verisign respectively, discuss this "measurement of the measurement" exercise, what they found out, and what it may mean for the future of metrics at the DNS Root.

It's an interesting "meta conversation" about measuring things which themselves are measurements. We see this all the time in the real world, for example diagnostic imaging machines designed to measure bone density (for osteoporosis checks) require calibration, and when you want to compare a baseline over time that calibration and the specific machine become questions the clinician may want to check, assessing the results. Change machine, you get different sensitivity. So how do you line up the data?

Moritz's investigations show that in some respects, the ICANN implementation of RSSAC047 was incomplete, and didn't tell an entirely accurate story about the state of the DNS Root Server System. Also, there are questions of scale and location which means a re-implementation or future improvement is worth discussing.

Read more about the DNS Root Server System, Moritz's report, and the RSSAC on the APNIC blog and on the web:

• Root-Servers.org website
• Monitoring highly distributed DNS deployments: Challenges and recommendations (APNIC Blog)
• RSSAC047: RSSAC Advisory on Metrics for the DNS Root Servers and the Root Server System (ICANN)
• SIDN Labs
• Verisign Labs

In this episode of PING, APNIC Chief Scientist Geoff Huston shares a story from the recent AusNOG in Melbourne and connects it to measurement work at APNIC Labs, exploring how modern IP flow control manages ‘fair shares’ of the network.

At AusNOG 2025, Geoff attended a talk by Lincoln Dale of Amazon AWS titled “No Packet Left Behind: AWS’s Approach to Building and Operating Reliable Networks”. The presentation examined how AWS scales its data centre networks, highlighting massive investments in high-speed routers and switches to support both global internet services and the vast flows of traffic between servers and other Amazon resources.

What AWS doesn’t do is rely on highly complex protocols like Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6), Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP), or other modern traffic engineering techniques unless absolutely necessary. Instead, they use a radically simplified, on-chip model of data management, pushing as much processing as possible into a single VLSI circuit and minimizing the amount of ‘smart’ work in the network. The question is: How can simplifying the IP stack to this extent actually work?

Geoff has long been sceptical of higher-layer protocols that try to manage bandwidth reservation and shaping. He recalls an earlier attempt by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) to signal congestion with Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN), a mechanism that still exists in the protocol stack and now underpins new bandwidth management approaches such as Apple and Comcast’s ‘L4S’.

APNIC Labs has measured how the wider Internet responds to ECN signals using an advertising-based model, and the results suggest this approach struggles outside tightly controlled, ‘walled garden’ networks. He contrasts this with advances in flow control through Google’s BBR, now in its third version, which refines the aggressive, bandwidth-seeking behaviour of TCP window management.

Read more about the story of IP, flow control and the modern Internet on the APNIC Blog, and the AusNOG website (video recordings of Lincon Dale’s talk and others should be released shortly)

• Measuring Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) (Geoff Huston, APNIC Blog)
• Notes from AusNOG 2025 (Geoff Huston, APNIC Blog)
• The AusNOG 2025 program (AusNOG Website, videos to be released shortly)
• 
  

In this episode of PING, Adli Wahid, APNIC's Security Specialist discusses the APNIC honeypot network, an investment in over 400 collectors distributed throughout the Asia Pacific, collecting data on who is trying to break into systems online and use them for malware, destributed denial of service, and command-and-control systems in the bad traffic economy.

Adli discusses how APNIC Members can get access to the results of honeynet traffic capture coming from their network address ranges, and originated from their AS in BGP using the DASH system. and explores some work planned for the APNIC Honeynet systems to extend their systems coverage.

As well as publishing reports on APNIC's Blog and presenting at NOG meetings and conferences, Adli has coordinated information sharing from this collector network with a range of international partners such as the Shadow Server Foundation. He continues to offer training and technical assistance in security to the APNIC community and works with the CERT, CSIRT and FIRST community at large.

Read more about Honeypots, bad traffic and systems security on the APNIC Blog and the web:

• Blogs on the honeynet (APNIC Blog)
• Adli's posts on the APNIC Blog
• The APNIC Dashboard for AS Health (DASH) (requires an APNIC member account)
• The Shadow Server Foundation dashboard

In this episode of PING, APNIC’s Chief Scientist, Geoff Huston, discusses the economic inevitability of centrality, in the modern Internet. Despite our best intentions, and a lot of long standing belief amongst the IETF technologists, no amount of open standards and end-to-end protocol design prevents large players at all levels of the network (from the physical infrastructure right up to the applications and the data centres which house them) from seeking to acquire smaller competitors, and avoid sharing the space with anyone else.

Some of this is a consequence of the drive for efficiency. A part has been fuelled by the effects of Moore’s law, and the cost of capital investment against the time available to recover the costs. In an unexpected outcome, networking has become (to all intents and purposes) “free” and instead of end-to-end, we now routinely expect to get data through highly localised, replicated sources. The main cost these days is land, electric power and air-conditioning. This causes a tendency to concentration, and networks and protocols play very little part in the decision about who acquires these assets, and operates them.

The network still exists of course, but increasingly data flows over private links, and is not subject to open protocol design imperatives.

A quote from Peter Thiel highlights how the modern Venture Capitalist in our space does not actively seek to operate in a competitive market. As Peter says: “competition is for losers” – It can be hard to avoid the “good” and “bad” labels talking about this, but Geoff is clear he isn’t here to argue what is right or wrong, simply to observe the behaviour and the consequences.

Geoff presented on centrality to the Decentralised Internet Research Group or DINRG at the recent IETF meeting held in Madrid, and as he observes, “distributed” is not the same as “decentralised” -we’ve managed to achieve the first one, but the second eludes us.

Read more about the policy issues of the modern Internet at the apnic labs blog, the DINRG (IETF) and APNIC Blog

• Decentralizing Services? (Geoff Huston, talk to DINRG IETF123 Madrid)
• Centralization topics at the APNIC Blog
• DINRG at the IETF Wiki (IETF web page)

In this episode of PING, Robert Kisteleki from the RIPE NCC discusses the RIPE Atlas system -a network of over 13,000 measurement devices deployed worldwide in homes, exchange points, stub and transit AS, densely connected regions and sparse island states.

Atlas began with a vision of the world at night -a powerful metaphor for where people are, and where technology reaches. Could a measurement system achieve sufficient density to "light up the internet" in a similar manner? Could network measurement be "democratized" to include internet citizens at large?

From it's launch at the RIPE 61 meeting held in Rome Italy. with 500 probes based on a small ucLinux device designed as an ethernet converter, to 5 generations of probe hardware and now a soft probe design which can be installed on linux, and an "anchor" device which not only sends tests but can receive them, Atlas has become core technology for network monitoring, measurement and research.

Rob discusses the history, design, methodology and futures of this system. A wonderful contribution from the RIPE NCC for the community at large.

In this episode of PING, APNIC’s Chief Scientist, Geoff Huston, discusses "a day in the life of BGP" -Not an extraordinary day, not a special day, just the 8th of May.

What happens inside the BGP system, from the point of view of AS4608, one ordinary BGP speaker on the edge of the network? What kinds of things are seen, and why are they seen?

Geoff has been measuring BGP for almost it's entire life as the internet routing protocol, but this time looks at the dynamics at a more "micro" level than usual. In particular there are some things about the rate of messages and changes which points to the problems BGP faces. A small number of BGP speakers produce the vast majority of change, and overall the network information BGP speakers have to deal with as a persisting view of the world increases more slowly. Both kinds of message dynamics have to be dealt with.

Can we fix this? Is there even anything worth fixing here, or is BGP just doing fine?

Read more about the dynamics of BGP on the APNIC Blog:

• A Day in the life of BGP (Geoff Huston June 2025 APNIC Blog)
• BGP topics at the APNIC Blog
• Geoff's archive of BGP data at bgp.potaroo.net

In this episode of PING, Doug Madory from Kentik discusses his rundown of the state of play in secure BGP across 2024 and 2025. Kentik has it’s own internal measurements of BGP behaviour and flow data across the surface of the internet, which combined with the Oregon University curated routeviews archive means Doug can analyse both the publicly visible state of BGP from archives, and Kentik’s own view of the dynamics of BGP change, along side other systems like the worldwide RPKI model, and the Internet Routing Registry systems.

Doug has written about this before on the APNIC Blog in May of 2024.

RPKI demands two outcomes, Firstly that the asset holders who control a given range of Internet Address sign an intent regarding who originates it the ROA, and secondly that the BGP speakers worldwide implement validation of the routing they see, known as Route Origin Validation or ROV. ROA signing is easy, and increases very simply if the delegate uses an RIR hosted system to make the signed objects. ROV is not always simple and has to be deployed carefully so has a slower rate of deployment, and more consequence in costs to the BGP speaker. Doug has been tracking both independently, as well as looking at known routing incidents in the default free zone, and therefore the impact on RPKI active networks, and everywhere else.

Read more about RPKI and BGP on the APNIC Blog, the web, and at Doug’s own blogging at Kentik:

• RPKI ROV reaches a Major Milestone (APNIC Blog, May 2024)
• Blog Articles by Doug Madory on the APNIC Blog
• The Oregon Routeviews Project
• Doug Madory’s blog posts at Kentik
• A shorter interview with Doug Madory on AS_SET problems features in an earlier PING episode, recorded at the ISOC Pulse “PIMF” session at APRICOT 2025.

In this episode of PING, APNIC’s Chief Scientist, Geoff Huston, discusses the root zone of the DNS, and some emerging concerns in how much it costs to service query load at the root.

In the absence of cacheing, all queries in the DNS (except ones the DNS system you ask is locally authoritative for anyway) have to be sent through the root of the DNS, to find the right nameserver to ask for the specific information. Thanks to cacheing, this system doesn't drown in the load of every worldwide query, all the time, going through the root. But, even taking cacheing into account there is an astronomical amount of query seen at the root, and it has two interesting qualities

Firstly, its growing significantly faster than the normal rate of growth of the Internet. We're basically at small incremental growth overall in new users, but query load at the root increases significantly faster, even after some more unexpected loads have been reduced.

Secondly, almost all of the queries demand the answer "No, that doesn't exist" and the fact most traffic to the root hunts the answer NO means that the nature of distributed DNS cacheing of negative answers isn't addressing the fundamental burden here.

Geoff thinks we may be ignoring some recent developments in proving the contents of a zone, the ZONEMD record which is a DNSSEC signed check on the entire zone contents, and emerging systems to download the root zone, and localise all the queries sent onwards into a copy of the root held in the resolver.

Basically, "can we do better" -And Geoff thinks, we very probably can.

Read more about the economics of the root zone and ZONEMD at the APNIC Blog and on the web:

• The Root of the DNS (Geoff Huston, APNIC Blog March 2025)
• ZoneMD: Message digest for DNS Zones RFC8976 (IETF RFC)

In this episode of PING, We’re talking to Leslie Daigle from the Global Cyber Alliance (GCA) again, discussing GCA’s honeynet project. Leslie spoke with PING back in January 2024, and in this episode we re-visit things. Honeynets (or Honey farms) are deliberately weakly protected systems put online, to see what kinds of bad traffic exist out in the global Internet, where they come from and what kinds of attack they are mounting.

In the intervening period GCA has continued to develop its honeyfarm, building out it’s own systems images, and can now capture more kinds of bad traffic. They have also bedded in the MANRS community, which is now supported by GCA worldwide.

In this episode, Leslie is actually asking more questions than providing answers. If we accept that there is now a persisting problem at scale, what kinds of approaches do we need to take to “get on top” of bad traffic? It used to be we thought of this in terms of technical solutions but increasingly Leslie feels we now need to broaden the conversation and take this into Public policy and governance communities, to understand what kinds of social cost we can bear, and what socially driven objectives we want to drive to. The problem is, this is one of the tasks technologists are often the least equipped to do: Talk to people.

GCA is showcasing the AIDE system, reachable at https://gcaaide.org/ as a way of opening up the conversation with national strategic policy makers, and the wider community. It’s a simple economy & region model summarising the state of honeynet detected bad traffic levels worldwide, and helps to set an agenda with which the individual ISPs and routing-active community can engage, for their locus of control.

Read more about GCA, Honey nets, AIDE on the APNIC blog and the web:

• The invisible War: Why securing Internet Traffic is Everyone’s Responsibility (Leslie Daigle, APNIC Blog May 2025)
• Global Cyber Alliance measurements (Podcast, PING at APNIC Jan 2024)
• Dealing with the undercurrent of unwanted Traffic (Leslie Daigle, APNIC Blog October 2022)
• AIDE: Addressing unwanted Internet Traffic at it’s source (GCA Website)