[Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Jul 28 02:17:06 UTC 2021

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 12:00 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:


> @Noah +10000....


> Le mar. 27 juil. 2021 à 18:41, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> a écrit :



> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 7:32 PM Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <community-discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>> wrote:


>> PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing

>> just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.


> Where is your basis in policy for this?


> Let me attempt to answer your fake question with links that show AFRINIC members from some of the 54 AFRICAN countries with real networks in AFRICA.


> https://bgp.he.net/country/KE <https://bgp.he.net/country/KE>

> https://bgp.he.net/country/TZ <https://bgp.he.net/country/TZ>

> https://bgp.he.net/country/ZA <https://bgp.he.net/country/ZA>

> https://bgp.he.net/country/NG <https://bgp.he.net/country/NG>

> https://bgp.he.net/country/MU <https://bgp.he.net/country/MU>

You’re not answering the question I asked…

What is your basis in policy for claiming that a VM is OK, but leasing addresses without providing connectivity
services is not?

It’s simply not prohibited anywhere in policy.

> Or wait... I can not find this so-called LIR Cloud Innovation Limited with offices in Seychelles using this BGP tool.


> https://bgp.he.net/country/SC <https://bgp.he.net/country/SC>



> You try so hard to pretend with your alternative reality in your quest to defend Heng Lu and his IP ADDRESS SOLUTIONS business run under his subsidiary HongKong company Larus https://www.larus.net/ <https://www.larus.net/>


> FYI... "AFRINIC has never approved any application for IP space for the purpose of leasing despite having received such requests."

OK, so AFRINIC has repeatedly violated their own policies. Doesn’t change the question and doesn’t change the reality.

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-February/003907.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-February/003907.html>

Also, nobody in their right mind would submit an application with that kind of specificity. The following justification is perfectly
adequate and conforms to policy:

We will use the addresses to number internet connected hosts on our own and on our customers’ networks.


> Cheers,

> Noah

> PS: The ALLOCATION POLICY is linked to the AFRINIC BYLAWS which are both linked to the AFRINIC RSA.

That’s correct. Now show me where, in any of those documents, connectivity is required to be provided in conjunction
with address resource services. If you can’t do that, then you’ve made my case.

FWIW, I’m not saying that I like this situation, but I am saying that’s what the policies actually say. If the AFRINIC community
truly sought to prohibit out of region use or leasing, then they could easily propose and get consensus for policies that would
do so. There was an attempt at prohibiting out of region utilization several years ago. It met with substantial resistance for a
variety of reasons from virtually every segment of the community. It was eventually withdrawn by the authors without gaining
consensus. Nobody has ever even proposed a possible policy to prohibit providing address services without providing
connectivity services. Possibly because most people recognize that such a policy wouldn’t have much of a useful effect.

There’s a very simple fig leaf that someone could use in case such a policy were passed:

Announce the aggregates (least specific prefixes) from a central site in the region.
Reannounce the more specifics upon customer request, but heavily prepended.
Have some minimal connection to each customer so that packets delivered to the aggregate
can be delivered to the customer if necessary.
Customers maintain their other connections and have LOAs to multi home and announce their less specific

Voila, now it’s not technically leasing without connectivity, but it might as well be. The less specifics are very unlikely
to pull in any significant traffic as they’ll be overridden by the more specifics advertised elsewhere (and/or the longer
AS Path for the more specifics). Obviously, the customers will hot potato their outbound traffic to their closest highest
bandwidth egress points rather than through the narrow pipe back to the “address service provider”.

Currently policy doesn’t require this pretense. If it does, I suspect it would get implemented as needed to comply.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20210727/0f70a03d/attachment.html>

More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list