[rpd] AfriNIC and Geo-Location

[McTim]

Morning Andrew,

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Andrew Alston
<Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>
>
> I’ve queried some of this with AfriNIC and am awaiting replies, but in the
> mean time I figured I’d ask some questions here and perhaps someone with
> more knowledge of how these things work than I can shed some light.
>
>
>
> So, scenario.
>
>
>
> I have a /16 block, and lets say hypothetically that the block is held by a
> Mauritian entity.
>
>
>
> I then do an assignment of a /19 out of that /16  block to a sub-company in
> Kenya.
>
>
>
> The geo-location databases will still insist that block is in Mauritius
> (even after weeks)
>
>
>
> However, if I do a sub-allocate to a sub-company in Kenya, the geo-location
> databases DO show the space in Kenya.
>
>
>
> Now, I understand basically what the difference between assignments and
> sub-allocations is, but I’m at a loss to understand why the geo-location
> databases don’t see updates on assignments, no matter how much I dig into
> the issue.

So it seems that geo loc entities only use the allocation (and sub
allocation) country field, not those used in assignments?

If so, then it is those entities that need to change, not Afrinic.

the inetnum template allows for multiple countries to be used in the
"country" field:

inetnum: [mandatory] [single] [primary/lookup key]
netname: [mandatory] [single] [lookup key]
descr: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ]
country: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ]
admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key]
tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key]

org: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key]
status: [mandatory] [single] [ ]
remarks: [optional] [multiple] [ ]
notify: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key]
mnt-by: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key]
mnt-lower: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key]
mnt-routes: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key]
mnt-irt: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key]
changed: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ]
source: [mandatory] [single] [ ]




  If I understood this, I could then go to AfriNIC and see if we
> could find a way to fix this, because it DOES create a problem for
> multi-nationals that are assigning space to companies that are buying cross
> border circuits and aren’t geo-located in the original country of
> assignment.  (Which creates inaccurate whois data).


it won't be inaccurate if the allocation holder uses the country field
when adding inetnum objects to the afrinic DB, right?


or am I missing smt here?



>
>
>
> In our case, I wouldn’t mind doing the sub-allocate, but I also am
> struggling to understand the policy motivation behind the sub-allocation
> stuff (I’ve queried this with AfriNIC staff a few minutes ago, and I’m sure
> when they get time they will explain), but basically if you sub-allocate,
> that puts a request through to the staff and seems to ask for all sorts of
> justifications for it (addressing plans etc), and I’m trying to understand
> if there is anything in the policies that would require this beyond what is
> done for assignments.  If anyone knows of anything off the top of their
> heads, info would be appreciated.

from : http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001


"6.5 Sub-Allocation

To "sub-allocate" means to distribute address space (by LIRs) to ISPs
for the purpose of subsequent distribution."


In other words, you can further ASSIGN from a sub-allocation, but not
from an assignment, so that is the difference.

--
McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel