[rpd] AFRINIC Board ratifies Policy Proposal AFPUB-2016-V4-003-DRAFT03: IPv4 Resources transfer within the AFRINIC Region

[Ben Maddison]

Hi all,

I fully agree with the below points made already by Mark and Andrew, which I needn't repeat.
In addition to the issues surrounding the routing of the transfered prefix, it is also important to note that the below scenario would require punching a /26 sized hole in an existing prefix, which would be similarly problematic.
I'd also point out that were the below hypothetical scenario to deteriorate onto litigation, AFRINIC could conceivably be joined as an interested party, thus wasting time and money on legal representation.
For all these reasons, I strongly support limiting transfers to a minimum size of /24.

Cheers,

Ben

--
Sent from Hiri<https://www.hiri.com/>


On 2017-07-22 11:35:49+02:00 Andrew Alston wrote:
I think it goes beyond just pressure on the ISP to accept the /26 – it’s trying to explain to the customer after the fact that despite you accepting it and propagating it (hopefully in violation of your own policy), that their reachability is extremely limited.

End of the day – the customers don’t care that *YOU* are accepting it and that *YOU* are propagating it – what they care about is the fact that THEY can’t get somewhere, and no matter how many times you explain the situation – you can find customers that simply don’t want to hear and give you tons of grief.

As a result – I would say – just to avoid headaches for the ISP’s – language to limit this is pretty important

Andrew


From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>
Date: Saturday, 22 July 2017 at 17:22
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Cc: "rpd at afrinic.net" <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board ratifies Policy Proposal AFPUB-2016-V4-003-DRAFT03: IPv4 Resources transfer within the AFRINIC Region


On 21/Jul/17 21:00, Owen DeLong wrote:


Do you honestly believe that if AfriNIC allows long transfers it will magically cause ISPs to start accepting long prefixes into the FIB?

Not magically, but if an ISP obtains a /26 by way of transfer, they could put their service provider under pressure to route it. Of course, that exchange is outside of AFRINIC's scope, and I know any language to manage that could be over-reaching, but I suppose what I'm trying to do is to remove the opportunity to have the discussion in the first place.




I think it is prudent, but I think because those that might be gullible enough to buy a longer prefix are likely those who don’t really understand the ramifications resulting in some rather awkward subsequent arguments where AfriNIC is dragged in despite being only the recorder of the transfer and not party to the terms of the sale so to speak.

I have seen strange things in my day. This wouldn't surprise me in the least.

But in all fairness, I'm not that horny for such text to be in policy. Something like this can easily self-correct if it did happen. But if the text were there, I wouldn't mind either.

Mark.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170722/ce57911d/attachment.html>