[rpd] End of LAST call

[Frank Habicht]

Hi,

I trust that AfriNIC staff will only inform members of their new
delegations _after_ the changes to ROAs for non-delegated space were done.

[optionally AfriNIC could add to their email about resource delegation a
statement "because of previous issuance of a ROA of same prefix with
AS0, global routability might be delayed by 24h"; but this does not need
to be specified in policy]

After member is informed of the delegation, they will create ROAs, route
objects [possibly reverse DNS]; will start originating that prefix
globally via BGP...
and can only 24 hours later [SAD!!!] put production traffic on that prefix.

I think that's acceptable.
If you disagree, it's a small operational update internal to AfriNIC to
just wait 24 hours from the update of the ROAs until the member gets
informed of the delegation.

Regards,
Frank

On 02/02/2020 00:39, Daniel Yakmut wrote:

> To response to your questions,

> 

> 

> at least I will like to see about 24 hours, which will be minimally

> impactful, but the current infrastructure does not allow this small

> amount of time.

> 

> The impact I possibly see is the delay in allocation.

> 

> 

> Simply,

> 

> Danile

> 

> On 31/01/2020 7:34 am, Frank Habicht wrote:

>> Hi,

>>

>> On 31/01/2020 08:51, Daniel Yakmut via RPD wrote:

>>> I don't agree with your submission that; "All of the “objections” I saw

>>> seemed to indicate a clear lack of understanding of RPKI in general and

>>> the proposal in specific."

>>>

>>> I particularly raised a concern "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.

>> I would like to get more specific information:

>>

>> 1. According to you, Daniel: how much time does the "current state of

>> RPKI" provide between revocation of ROA and notification that a given

>> prefix has been allocated to an organization?

>>

>> 2. How much time would you consider "sufficient"?

>>

>> 3. which impact on allocations to you see?

>>

>>

>> Thanks,

>> Frank

>> (co-author)

>>

>>> Except we

>>> can be able to provide a sufficient period or create a different

>>> procedure, the proposal for the RPKI-ROAs does not fly"

>>> and I did not receive any response from the author(s), I suspect this is

>>> a concern that is critical and important to possible adoption and

>>> implementation this proposal

>>>

>>> However, I will agree that the author(s) may have been overwhelm with

>>> the number of "objections" raised and could not keep track of it and

>>> response, hence I will suggest that the co-chairs could help by

>>> summarising the objections for the action of the author(s).

>>>

>>> Simply.

>>>

>>> Dan

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> On 31/01/2020 3:18 am, Owen DeLong wrote:

>>>> I agree with Nishal, Jordi, and Frank.

>>>>

>>>> All of the “objections” I saw seemed to indicate a clear lack of

>>>> understanding of RPKI in general and the proposal in specific.

>>>>

>>>> All of them raised concerns that simply don’t fit the facts of what

>>>> is being proposed.

>>>>

>>>> I did not see any legitimate or critical objections. If there is

>>>> something I missed, please enumerate it (them) for the edification

>>>> of the list.

>>>>

>>>> Owen

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> On Jan 29, 2020, at 03:58 , Nishal Goburdhan

>>>>> <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> On 29 Jan 2020, at 12:35, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Dear PDWG,

>>>>>> The following policy proposals have been on the Last call for

>>>>>> about 4 weeks

>>>>>> 1.  Multihoming not required for ASN

>>>>>> 2.  Adjusting IPv6 PA Policy

>>>>>> 3. RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space

>>>>>>

>>>>>> However, we received some critical objections that should be

>>>>>> addressed on

>>>>>> the policy named  "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned

>>>>>> AFRINIC Address

>>>>>> Space" therefore we believe it requires more discussion.

>>>>> could you enumerate those “critical objections” please.  that would

>>>>> help the authors to fix this for round two.

>>>>> from my perspective, the last series of responses, came from a

>>>>> fundamental misunderstanding of what RPKI is, and how it works.

>>>>>

>>>>> (bear in mind, that it’s not the authors’ - or this list’s -

>>>>> responsibility to explain RPKI ..)

>>>>>

>>>>> -n.

>>>>>

>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net

>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>> RPD at afrinic.net

>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> RPD mailing list

>>> RPD at afrinic.net

>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd