Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01: "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space"

Paschal Ochang pascosoft at gmail.com
Fri Jan 10 15:08:12 UTC 2020

The perceived impacts will continue to be there until perhaps a staff
impact analysis probably clears the air and this is one of the reasons I
supported the staff impact analysis which was opposed by some. I also have
some concerns regarding how timelines for revocations and new allocations
might be affected by the revocation of AS0 VRP and how this will dissappear
from validator caches worldwide.



On Friday, January 10, 2020, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:


>

>

> On Jan 9, 2020, at 03:21 , Anthony Ubah <ubah.tonyiyke at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Hello Owen,

>

> Although you haven't provided adequate clarity on impact, which I think

> must be put into good consideration.

>

>

> From my perspective, there is effectively 0 impact unless AfriNIC blunders

> the process.

>

> The proposed policy allows/requires AfriNIC staff to create and issue AS0

> ROAs for all space under AfriNIC management which is not allocated or

> assigned.

>

> Presumably, this would also require them to withdraw and/or replace such

> ROAs upon issuance (allocation or assignment) of any space covered by an

> AS0 ROA.

>

> Further, as has been mentioned previously, any impact is limited to ISPs

> that choose to accept and make routing decisions based on these ROAs.

>

> The odds of AfriNIC blundering this are relatively low IMHO, but it’s not

> entirely blunder-proof, so there is some risk. I think the risk is

> negligible and the proposal is good policy.

>

> I’m not sure what other clarity on impact you might be looking for as

> everything here has been previously stated.

>

> Quoting my previous comment, " I'm not abreast of staff impact assessment

> in the previous presentations, so please offer me some clarity”

>

>

> Honestly, neither am I if any such impact assessment has been issued (I’m

> not convinced this has yet happened).

>

> I did follow the discussions in the APNIC region. My questions on the

> matter were quickly and effectively addressed and I supported the proposal

> at that point.

>

> Do we have data on the operational implication/Impact of other RIRs that

> have this ion consideration, and/or that which has adopted and implemented

> it?

>

>

> I don’t believe it is yet implemented anywhere. What is written above is,

> to the best of my knowledge, all we know so far. However, I think you are

> getting wrapped around the axel on perceived impacts which simply don’t

> hold true for RPKI in general, let alone for this proposal.

>

> Also, I'm still curious about the effectiveness of this policy if it is

> implemented on RIR to RIR basis. I think it will be of no great impact,

> judging by the number of resources within the jurisdiction of AfriNIC.

>

>

> I’m not even sure what “implemented on RIR to RIR basis” would mean in

> this context.

>

> Basically, the same proposal is being floated in all of the RIRs as Jordi

> mentioned.

>

> Each RIR will implement it independently if they adopt the policy.

>

> In each case, the RIR in question would begin issuing AS0 ROAs for all

> prefixes in their inventory which have not been issued to another party and

> are not in use by the RIR itself.

>

> In other words, these AS0 ROAs would (theoretically) cover only

> unallocated prefixes and not space which has been issued.

>

> I honestly think this policy is very operational and should be reviewed.

> Only a global policy will be reasonable because a none uniform policy might

> create additional and unreasonable stress.

>

>

> The policy is only minimally operational. It has been reviewed by many

> people. Who do you think additionally needs to review it?

>

> A non-uniform policy does not create any additional or unreasonable

> stress. It creates an RIR that doesn’t provide an easy way to identify

> space which is being squatted.

>

> Owen

>

>

>

> *Best Regards,*

>

> *UBAH ANTHONY*

>

>

> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:22 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>

>> RPKI in general involves AfriNIC in the routing process.

>>

>> This proposal does not significantly expand that.

>>

>> Without any change in policy, anyone can issue an AS0 ROA for their

>> holdings.

>>

>> This proposal merely creates the ability for AfriNIC to issue AS0 ROAs

>> for space which is both under AfriNIC administration and not issued to

>> anyone.

>>

>> This is a good thing.

>>

>> It does not create any new opportunities for DOS.

>>

>> Owen

>>

>>

>> On Jan 6, 2020, at 01:18 , Anthony Ubah <ubah.tonyiyke at gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> Hello Jordi,

>>

>> An observation. I might be wrong, so correct me if I am.

>> From my understanding, if the policy involves AfriNIC in the routing

>> process, it is impacting on staff as there must be multiple checks

>> post-implementation to mitigate accidental/malicious DOS. In this case,

>> don't you think AfriNIC's operational details should also be considered as

>> well in certain policies like this which are impacting?

>> I'm not abreast of staff impact assessment in the previous presentations,

>> so please offer me some clarity.

>>

>> Finally looking at this from the AfriNIC lens, with our single-digit

>> percentile of resource allocation, how effective will this policy be if

>> other RIRs with bigger resources don not have an equivalent implementation?

>> I think this will only be truly efficient if implemented on a global scope,

>> starting from the RIRs with the bulk of resources.

>>

>> *A Happy New year to everyone*

>>

>>

>> *Best Regards,*

>>

>> *UBAH ANTHONY*

>>

>>

>>

>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:53 AM <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:

>>

>>> 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. Re: AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01: "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated

>>> and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space" (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)

>>>

>>>

>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>

>>> Message: 1

>>> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2020 08:52:20 +0100

>>> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>

>>> To: <rpd at afrinic.net>

>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01: "RPKI ROAs for

>>> Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space"

>>> Message-ID: <F8A958E3-701E-43A5-9236-6067083B51C6 at consulintel.es>

>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>>>

>>> Hi Taiwo,

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> In the policy we don?t talk about specific operational details, such as

>>> timing. This up to the staff to set.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Human errors are possible even without this policy, right? The

>>> implementation should make sure that that doesn?t happen.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> An human error can make allocated/assigned space to appear back as

>>> unnallocated/unnasigned space and given to another member. So this policy

>>> doesn?t change that. But of course, there should be sufficient checks in

>>> the implementation to avoid that.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> According to what you say, *any* policy should wait for the

>>> implementation so we decide if we agree on the consensus of *not just the

>>> policy* but the *implementation as well* ?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Regards,

>>>

>>> Jordi

>>>

>>> @jordipalet

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> El 6/1/20 7:19, "Taiwo Oyewande" <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com> escribi?:

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Are resources reclaimed by Afrinic regarded as bogons, how long after

>>> reclaim of such resources will they be given a ROA with origin AS0?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> What happens in the case of human or machine error in revoking the AS0

>>> state. Which can lead to DOS of the resource holder. I think there are some

>>> technicalities unresolved that affect the implication of this policy which

>>> needs to be looked at before moving forward with this policy

>>>

>>>

>>> On 4 Jan 2020, at 12:40, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>> Hi Kakel,

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> I believe you?re getting it wrong.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> I can?t see how this proposal has any implications in any government

>>> manipulation over Internet. Can you explain it?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Remember that to oposse to any proposal, you need to reasonably justifiy

>>> your opossition, specially during the last-call, in case something hasn?t

>>> been discovered in the previous stage, when the proposal already reached

>>> consensus.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Regards,

>>>

>>> Jordi

>>>

>>> @jordipalet

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> El 4/1/20 12:23, "Kakel Mbumb" <kakelmbumb at gmail.com> escribi?:

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> 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

>>>

>>> Charg? du D?partement 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

>>>

>>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/KakelMbumb

>>>

>>> Linked in: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kakel-mbumb-240534ba/

>>>

>>> Skype: kakel.mbumb1

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Le sam. 4 janv. 2020 ? 12:07, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> a ?crit :

>>>

>>> 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

>>> ***********************************

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list

>>> RPD at afrinic.net 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

>>> 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.

>>>

>>> -------------- next part --------------

>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

>>> URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/

>>> 20200106/1c079e32/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 15

>>> ************************************

>>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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/20200110/f7f4df7e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the RPD mailing list