Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 160, Issue 5
Kakel Mbumb
kakelmbumb at gmail.com
Sat Jan 4 11:13:43 UTC 2020
The proposal for RPKI is not applicable as it centralises the control of
internet; and also represents a potential risk for government to overtake
it.
We are a community and need to be independent on the way we treat our
resources; so i oppose this proposal.
*KAKEL MBUMB*
*Chargé du Département Entrepreneuriat au Forum National de la Jeunesse
(FNJ)*
*Coordinator, YPARD-RDC Grand Katanga, Agricultural Development through
Youths*
*Project Vice Coordinator, Agribusiness Cooperative - CAAPJECO*
*Consultant, RESOJEC, Youth Chamber of Commerce*
*Country Representative, Mashinani Hub ,ICT skills for rural communities*
*Yali RLC EA Cohort 6 Alumnus, Business & Entrepreneurship*
*Lubumbashi, Haut-Katanga Province*
*Democratic Republic of the Congo (Congo, DRC)*
*Phone: +243 993 656 038 (Whatsapp) *
*Facebook: **https://www.facebook.com/kakelmbumb
<https://www.facebook.com/kakelmbumb>*
*Twitter: **https://twitter.com/KakelMbumb <https://twitter.com/KakelMbumb>*
*Linked in: **https://www.linkedin.com/in/kakel-mbumb-240534ba/
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/kakel-mbumb-240534ba/>*
*Skype: kakel.mbumb1*
Le sam. 4 janv. 2020 à 12:07, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> a écrit :
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
> rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01: "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and
> Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space" (Sylvain Baya)
> 2. Re: New policy proposals and updated ones - RPKI-ROAs
> (Daniel Yakmut)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2020 00:01:55 +0100
> From: Sylvain Baya <abscoco at gmail.com>
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>, "PDWG's Mailing List"
> <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: [rpd] AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01: "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated
> and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space"
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAJjTEvEDJog_EvR8O5VYvi6uf+yhdN-tsWhzaxnhkDH4mGSTwg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi all,
>
> Best wishes for this new year ; added in the Grace era !
>
> Please my comments are below (inline)...
>
> 2020-01-03 17:46 UTC+01:00, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>:
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 30, 2019, at 06:38 , Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello Jordi,
> >> feliz Navidad y un Feliz A?o Nuevo.
> >>
> >> I have some concerns regarding this proposal and also some
> clarifications
> >> .
> >>
> >> I think statistically AFRINIC has a good percentage of IPv4 address
> space
> >> covered by route origin authorization as compared to APNIC. APNIC has a
> >> very low percentage statically hence it's hurried acceptance of the
> >> proposal.
> >
> > I corrected the subject line to be descriptive of what is meant by ?the
> > proposal/this proposal??
> >
>
> Dear Owen,
>
> Thanks for your email.
>
> ...yes ! adjusting the subject line helps to focus the discussion,
> but i'm not sure that there was a real need in this particular case :-/
>
> ...btw, your timing is perfect, with the new year :-D
>
> >
> > There?s no relationship between your statement and the proposal.
> >
>
> ...not sure !
> But if you append ?intent? to ?proposal? ; then i'll certainly agree ; -)
>
> ...please see below.
>
> >
> > The proposal creates AS0 ROAs for addresses in the RIR inventory which
> have
> > not been issued or which have been reclaimed or returned.
> >
>
> Exact !
>
> ...but don't forget that usually, in this PDWG, the title and problem
> statement
> (and even the description of the proposed solution) of a DPP (Draft Policy
> Proposal) means nothing.
>
> Yes, that's sad ! but true :'-(
>
> >
> > It has nothing to do with addresses which have been issued but are not
> > covered by an ROA.
> >
> > As such, I see no problem with the proposal.
> >
> >> I think using the approach in this policy is majorly to handle
> accidental
> >> incidents rather than malicious attacks whereby someone might try to
> >> manipulate an AS path.
> >
> > RPKI does nothing at all to help with manipulated AS Paths. It is only
> > effective against prefixes originated from the wrong ASN.
> >
> > In the case of this policy, it will aid in the prevention/detection of
> > unauthorized use of unallocated number resources.
> >
> >> It is suggested to always drop invalid announcements, rather than
> applying
> >> a lower preference. This is because sub-prefix hijackings would be still
> >> possible if invalids are accepted and this would go against the purpose
> of
> >> RPKI validation. However I think the text should state how invalids
> >> should be dropped in order not to trigger loosing connectivity.
> >
> > I?m not sure how many different ways you think there are to drop a
> route. At
> > least on the routers I?ve run (Cisco, Juniper, Mikrotik, Vyatta, Ascend,
> > Livingston, Foundry, etc.), you can either drop a prefix or accept it.
> The
> > decision is binary and there are not multiple ?ways? to drop on. In some
> > cases, you can choose additional behaviors such as logging, but I hardly
> see
> > that as relevant to whether connectivity is preserved or not.
> >
> > I think what you may be missing in your understanding is that Invalid is
> not
> > the same as Unknown. RPKI validation provides three possible results:
> > 1. Valid ? The route matches a ROA and the ROA matches the
> Origin ASN.
> > Further, the ROA signature chain is cryptographically valid.
> > 2. Invalid ? The route matches a ROA, but either the ROA
> signature fails
> > validation or the Origin ASN does not match or the prefix length is
> longer
> > than the specified maximum.
> > 3. Not Found/Unknown ? The route does not match a ROA
> >
> > Note that a prefix which is shorter than an intersecting ROA is
> considered
> > not to match. See table below for details on how this works out:
> >
> >
> > ROA Prefix
> > MAX Length
> > Origin AS
> > Received Prefix
> > Origin AS
> > Result
> >
> > 192.0.2.0/24
> > 24
> > 65550
> > 192.0.2.0/24
> > 64498
> > Invalid
> >
> > 192.0.2.0/24
> > 24
> > 65550
> > 192.0.2.0/28
> > 64498
> > Invalid
> >
> > 192.0.2.0/24
> > 24
> > 65550
> > 192.0.2.0/24
> > 65550
> > Valid
> >
> > 192.0.2.0/24
> > 24
> > 65550
> > 192.0.2.0/28
> > 65550
> > Invalid
> >
> > 192.0.2.0/28
> > 28
> > 65550
> > 192.0.2.0/24
> > 64498
> > Unknown
> >
> > 192.0.2.0/28
> > 28
> > 65550
> > 192.0.2.0/24
> > 65550
> > Unknown
> >
> > 192.0.2.0/28
> > 28
> > 65550
> > 192.0.2.0/28
> > 64498
> > Invalid
> >
> > 192.0.2.0/28
> > 28
> > 65550
> > 192.0.2.0/28
> > 65550
> > Valid
> >
> > 192.0.2.0/24
> > 24
> > 65550
> > 192.0.2.64/26
> > 65550
> > Invalid
> >
> > 192.0.2.0/24
> > 28
> > 65550
> > 192.0.2.64/26
> > 65550
> > Valid
> >
> >
> >> Finally I dont think it will be a nice idea allowing resource holders
> to
> >> create AS0 ROA as I think this scenario might increase the issue of
> >> invalid prefixes in the routing tables.
> >
> > This proposal does not allow resource holders to create AS0 ROAs. It
> expects
> > AfriNIC to create AS0 ROAs for space which is within AfriNIC
> administration,
> > but which is not currently issued.
> >
>
> ...i think the following portion of the [1] text explains the concerns
> raised by Paschal :
>
> ?[...] Any resource holder can create AS0 (zero) ROAs for the
> resources they have
> under their account/administration.
>
> An RPKI ROA is a positive attestation that a prefix holder has
> authorized an Autonomous System to originate a route for this prefix
> to the global BGP routing table. An RPKI ROA for the same prefixes
> with AS0 (zero) origin shows a negative intent from the resource
> holder to have the prefixes advertised in the global BGP routing
> table. [...]?
> __
> [1]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-006-d1/amp>
>
> >
> > I hope that clarifies the situation.
> >
>
> ...not sure, but you did more for most of the participants, in
> promoting RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure), ROA (Route Origin
> Autorisation) and ROV (RPKI-based route Origin Validation). So,
> validate and drop non-valid routes...
>
> IMHO, what would clarify is to :
>
> ??/
> ?'drop'/remove that portion of the text :-)
> ? (eventually) create a sub-section to provide definitions
> for new concepts. The definition sub-section would remove
> any ambiguity.
> ? (even if i think that this proposal is too much operational)
> simplify the core policy text like this :
> ?1| ?AFRINIC MUST/will create ROAs with origin AS0 for all
> the unallocated and unassigned address space (IPv4 & IPv6)
> for which it is the current administrator.?
> ?2| (i prefer this less operational version) ?AFRINIC MUST/will
> flag/mark all the unused (unallocated & unassigned) address
> space (IPv4 & IPv6) for which it is the current administrator.
> In order to render its unused address space unsquattable
> in a global secured routing context.?
> ? ...
> ??\
>
> The difference with my version (2|) is that it's more agnostic
> (technologcally/operationally speaking) and portable then it
> could (probably) more easily pass in all RIRs with the same
> text. To be proposed as a global policy : final/first goal of the
> authors :-)
>
> ...to be clearer, i prefer ?resource? rather than ?address space? ;-)
>
> Shalom,
> --sb.
>
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD
> >> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:
> >> Hi Sylvain,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> El 5/11/19 6:11, "Sylvain Baya" <abscoco at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:abscoco at gmail.com>> escribi?:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hope you are doing well.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please comments below (inline)...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le mardi 5 novembre 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net
> >> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> a ?crit :
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> This is the list of new policy proposals (note that the numbering can be
> >> modified by the staff when published).
> >>
> >> 1) AFPUB-2019-IPv6-002-DRAFT01: "Adjusting IPv6 PA Policy"
> >> Solves a discrepancy between IPv6 PI and IPv6 PA regarding the
> >> announcement of aggregated addressing space.
> >>
> >> 2) AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: "Chairs Elections Process"
> >> Including in the CPM a detailed procedure for the chair's elections.
> >>
> >> 3) AFPUB-2019-GEN-004-DRAFT01: "M&A Resource Transfers"
> >> Including in the CPM intra-RIR M&A for ASN, IPv4 and IPv6.
> >>
> >> 4) AFPUB-2019-GEN-005-DRAFT01: "Impact Analysis is Mandatory"
> >>
> >> 5) AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01: "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned
> >> AFRINIC Address Space"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ...i like this one. I recall that i was thinking ok how to solve the
> >> problem of 'Internet resources
> >>
> >> squatting'. I was naively imagining a solution where a RIR will have to
> >> flag all their
> >>
> >> unallocated|unassigned Address Space ; via a particular attribute of the
> >> IRR (Internet Routing
> >>
> >> Registry). Now i understand that i was not too dummy or even crazy :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh no! In that case the crazy one is me :-) !
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please send me your DPP (Draft Policy Proposal), i can not wait more to
> >> review it ;-)
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I was thinking in sending them in order (2 more today, 2 more tomorrow),
> >> but as you have interest in this one. My next one will be this one, I
> >> promise! Give me first a few minutes to respond to all the emails I got
> >> till now ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Shalom,
> >>
> >> --sb.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Updated policy proposals:
> >>
> >> a) AFPUB-2019-ASN-001-DRAFT03: "Multihoming not required for ASN"
> >>
> >> b) AFPUB-2019-IPv4-002-DRAFT02: "IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers
> >> (Comprehensive Scope)"
> >>
> >> c) AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT04: "Abuse Contact Policy Update"
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jordi
> >> @jordipalet
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best Regards !
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sylvain BAYA
> >>
> >> cmNOG's Co-Founder & Coordinator
> >>
> >> (+237) 677005341
> >>
> >> PO Box 13107 YAOUNDE / CAMEROON
> >>
> >> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm]
> >>
> >> abscoco2001 [AT yahoo DOT fr]
> >>
> >> http://www.cmnog.cm <http://www.cmnog.cm/>
> >> https://cmnog.wordpress.com <https://cmnog.wordpress.com/>
> >> ************************
> >>
> >> ?#?LASAINTEBIBLE(?#?Romains15:33):"Que LE ?#?DIEU de ?#?Paix soit avec
> >> vous tous!?#?Amen!"
> >>
> >> ?#?MaPri?re est que tu naisses de nouveau.
> >>
> >> ?#?Chr?tiennement
> >>
> >> ? Comme une biche soupire apr?s des courants d?eau, Ainsi
> mon
> >> ?me soupire apr?s toi, ? DIEU! ? (Psaumes 42 :2)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list
> >> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> >> **********************************************
> >> IPv4 is over
> >> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> >> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/>
> >> The IPv6 Company
> >>
> >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> >> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> >> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> >> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> >> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> >> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> >> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or
> >> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> >> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> >> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> >> communication and delete it.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> RPD mailing list
> >> RPD at afrinic.net
> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards !
> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | <https://www.cmnog.cm> |
> <https://survey.cmnog.cm>
> Subscribe to Mailing List : <
> https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
> __
> #?LASAINTEBIBLE?|?#?Romains15?:33?*Que LE ?#?DIEU? de ?#?Paix? soit avec
> vous tous! ?#?Amen?!*?
> ?#?MaPri?re? est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chr?tiennement?
> ?*Comme une biche soupire apr?s des courants d?eau, ainsi mon ?me soupire
> apr?s TOI, ? DIEU!*? (#Psaumes42:2)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2020 11:05:58 +0100
> From: Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com>
> To: Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com>, "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource
> Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] New policy proposals and updated ones - RPKI-ROAs
> Message-ID: <af4aee1c-37a2-fd08-1672-e4b02f124de5 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> The current state of RPKI infrastructure, does not provide a sufficient
> period between revocation of ROA and notification that a given prefix
> has been allocated to an organization, which can impact considerably on
> allocations. Except we can be able to provide a sufficient period or
> create a different procedure, the proposal for the RPKI-ROAs does not fly.
>
> On 30/12/2019 6:12 pm, Paschal Ochang wrote:
> > Yes in a way.
> >
> > On Monday, December 30, 2019, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com
> > <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 30/12/2019 11:38, Paschal Ochang wrote:
> >>
> >> It is suggested to always drop invalid announcements, rather than
> >> applying a lower preference. This is because sub-prefix
> >> hijackings would be still possible if invalids are accepted and
> >> this would go against the purpose of RPKI validation. However? I
> >> think the text should state how invalids should be dropped in
> >> order not to trigger loosing connectivity.
> >
> > If I understand correctly what you are willing to say, no proposal
> > should have on the text a way Autonomous Systems must treat
> > announcements they receive as it's their own decision. Some may
> > decide to drop what is recommended and some might just lower
> > preference at their own discretion right ?
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD
> >> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Sylvain,
> >>
> >> El 5/11/19 6:11, "Sylvain Baya" <abscoco at gmail.com
> >> <mailto:abscoco at gmail.com>> escribi?:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Hope you are doing well.
> >>
> >> Please comments below (inline)...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le mardi 5 novembre 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD
> >> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> a ?crit?:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> This is the list of new policy proposals (note that the
> >> numbering can be modified by the staff when published).
> >>
> >> 1) AFPUB-2019-IPv6-002-DRAFT01: "Adjusting IPv6 PA Policy"
> >> Solves a discrepancy between IPv6 PI and IPv6 PA
> >> regarding the announcement of aggregated addressing space.
> >>
> >> 2) AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: "Chairs Elections Process"
> >> Including in the CPM a detailed procedure for the chair's
> >> elections.
> >>
> >> 3) AFPUB-2019-GEN-004-DRAFT01: "M&A Resource Transfers"
> >> Including in the CPM intra-RIR M&A for ASN, IPv4 and IPv6.
> >>
> >> 4) AFPUB-2019-GEN-005-DRAFT01: "Impact Analysis is
> Mandatory"
> >>
> >> 5) AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01: "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated
> >> and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space"
> >>
> >> ...i like this one. I recall that i was thinking ok how to
> >> solve the problem of 'Internet resources
> >>
> >> squatting'. I was naively imagining a solution where a RIR
> >> will have to flag all their
> >>
> >> unallocated|unassigned Address Space ; via a particular
> >> attribute of the IRR (Internet Routing
> >>
> >> Registry). Now i understand that i was not too dummy or even
> >> crazy :-)
> >>
> >> Oh no! In that case the crazy one is me :-) !
> >>
> >> Please send me your DPP (Draft Policy Proposal), i can not
> >> wait more to review it ;-)
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> I was thinking in sending them in order (2 more today, 2 more
> >> tomorrow), but as you have interest in this one. My next one
> >> will be this one, I promise! Give me first a few minutes to
> >> respond to all the emails I got till now ?
> >>
> >> Shalom,
> >>
> >> --sb.
> >>
> >> Updated policy proposals:
> >>
> >> a) AFPUB-2019-ASN-001-DRAFT03: "Multihoming not required
> >> for ASN"
> >>
> >> b) AFPUB-2019-IPv4-002-DRAFT02: "IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource
> >> Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)"
> >>
> >> c) AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT04: "Abuse Contact Policy Update"
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jordi
> >> @jordipalet
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> ?Best Regards !
> >>
> >> Sylvain BAYA
> >>
> >> ?cmNOG's Co-Founder & Coordinator
> >>
> >> ?(+237) 677005341
> >>
> >> ?PO Box 13107 YAOUNDE / CAMEROON
> >>
> >> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm]
> >>
> >> ?abscoco2001 [AT yahoo DOT fr]
> >>
> >> http://www.cmnog.cm
> >>
> >> https://cmnog.wordpress.com
> >>
> >> ?************************
> >>
> >> ?#?LASAINTEBIBLE(?#?Romains15:33):"Que LE ?#?DIEU de ?#?Paix
> >> soit avec vous tous!?#?Amen!"
> >>
> >> ?#?MaPri?re est que tu naisses de nouveau.
> >>
> >> ?#?Chr?tiennement
> >>
> >> ? ? ? ? ? ?? Comme une biche soupire apr?s des courants
> >> d?eau, Ainsi mon ?me soupire apr?s toi, ? DIEU! ? (Psaumes 42
> :2)
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing
> >> list RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> >>
> >>
> >> **********************************************
> >> IPv4 is over
> >> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> >> http://www.theipv6company.com
> >> The IPv6 Company
> >>
> >> This electronic message contains information which may be
> >> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be
> >> for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and
> >> further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,
> >> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even
> >> if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> >> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you
> >> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
> >> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> >> information, even if partially, including attached files, is
> >> strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense,
> >> so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> >> communication and delete it.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> RPD mailing list
> >> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200104/a1cf786d/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 160, Issue 5
> ***********************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200104/66cf310d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list