[rpd] final decision on AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01 "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space" (last call)

[ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE]

*Dear PDWG*

* Apologies for the slow response,  co-chairs have been caught up with work
lately.    Below is a list of objections that were raised. *



   1. Objection point:

- [ ] Some technicalities- human or machine error in revoking the AS0
state- are unresolved which would affect the implication of this policy



Author:Taiwo Oyewande



Content:

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





   1. Objection Point:

- [ ] The policy involving Afrinic in the routing would impact staff due to
the multiple checks post-implementation

- [ ] Afrinic’s operation details should then be considered

- [ ] policy is not effective as we only have single-digit percentile of
resource allocation -> should be implemented on global scope



Author:Anthony Ubah



Content:


>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.







   1. Objection Point: a lot of people questioned the impact of this policy
   and the operational overhead of it



Author:Rob Evans



Content: > It has been already submitted to RIPE and we are waiting right
now for the impact analysis. I think unless the impact analysis finds
anything really terrible (which I don’t think is the case), it will reach
consensus.





Your reading of the discussion is different to mine. I think so far a

number of people have questioned the impact this will have, and the

operational overhead to implement it, so I'm not convinced we should

jump to conclusions. :)





   1. Objection Point:

- [ ] Questioning if they have enough data on the operational impact of
RIRs (asking for clarification)

- [ ] The policy has no great impact due to the number of resources within
the jurisdiction of AfriNIC.

- [ ] the policy is not global/unifrom enough which would create additional
and unreasonable stress.



Author:Anthony Ubah



Content:

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

must be put into good consideration.

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

in the previous presentations, so please offer me some clarity"

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?



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 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.





   1. Objection Point:

- [ ] Concern about the implementation process due to errors such as
“timing and wrong route origin authorisation” previously discussed



Author: Taiwo Oyewande



Content:

My main concern about this proposal still remains how smooth the
implementation can be (automated or manual). I recommend an additional
clause be added to the proposal to limit implementation errors such as
“timing and wrong route origin authorisation” previously discussed







   1. Objection Point:

- [ ] Asks for a staff impact analysis to clear confusions

- [ ] Concerned about how timelines for revocations and new allocations
might be affected by the revocation of AS0 VRP and how this will disappear
from validator caches worldwide





Author: Paschal Ochang



Content:

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 disappear

from validator caches worldwide.





   1. Objection point:

- [ ] Government would take all the control of RPKI and hence unable to
ensure users can use the Internet freely and legitimately.



Author: Blaise Fyama



Content:

I do not support the RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned Afrinic

Address Space policy as it raises the concern about the control of

internet; should we have to let the government take all control of RPKI and

therefore representing a risk on how to make sure the use of Internet free

and legitimate. I therefore object it on the the engagement of a free

internet controlled by the community and its users.







   1. Objection Point:

- [ ] The proposal centralises the control of the internet to the
government.



Author: Kakel Mbumb



Content:

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.





   1. Objection Point:

- [ ] RPKI does not stop boon

- [ ] it centralises the control of internet to the government



Author: Kakel Mbumb



Content:

Hello all, i think RPKI asks for bogon but does not stop bogon and it shall

not involve in routing issue. Do we really want it to centralise the

control of the internet because it can present potential risk for

government to overtake it.

Regards..





   1. Objection Point: same as above



Author: Kakel Mbumb



Content:

Hello Jordi, what I mean is RPKI centralises the control of the Internet

and allows AFRINIC to create ROAs for all unallocated and unassigned

address space under its control. Only AFRINIC has the authority to create

RPKI ROAs for address space not yet allocated or assigned to its members.

This thus concentrates the control of the internet to AFRINIC.




*We have also critically examined the response(s) from the authors and we
still believe that this proposal requires more discussion on a number of
the issue raised hence we are not yet recommending it for ratification. *

*We also understand that the community has a diverse voice on this
proposal. However, Co-chairs want to emphasise the fact that we are human
beings.  If anyone finds some error in our decisions you are welcome to
appeal it in line with the CPM.*


Thanks

Co-Chair PDWG

.









On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 9:15 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:


> By the way, just to clarify one of my points.

>

> The message from the chairs (

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010326.html), indicates "we

> believe it requires more discussion", and according the CPM 3.4.3, it may

> be interpreted as extending the last call.

>

> So, unless either the co-chairs clarify that, or the appeal committee has

> the same interpretation on that message, the appeal need to be submitted

> within 2-weeks of that message (which is today).

>

> Regards,

> Jordi

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

> El 12/2/20 13:59, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net>

> escribió:

>

>     Hi co-chairs, all,

>

>     I don't want to put any pressure on you, I fully understand how

> difficult is to take decisions in the PDP, but in my opinion, as well as

> other co-authors and other participants from the PDWG, there was not any

> justified objection during the last call.

>

>     However, by chance (I was looking for something else in the CPM) I

> just realized that the procedure in the CPM, as per section 3.5.2, states

> that an appeal must be submitted within 2 weeks of the public knowledge of

> the decision.

>

>     I don't know if you already looked at this deadline and we should

> already expect your response in the next few hours.

>

>     Otherwise, as this 2-weeks period expires today, we need to take a

> decision, *unless* the Appeal Committee can respond to this message,

> confirming that they will consider the 2-weeks period only starting once

> the co-chairs re-confirm its decision. I think this is feasible, because

> they already mention they are hearing the inputs and working on it.

>

>     Thanks for responding as promptly as possible (and maybe wasting time

> in an appeal if not really needed).

>

>     Regards,

>     Jordi

>     @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

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

>     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.

>

>


-- 
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin 
<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal 
<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal 
<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200212/b8203fd8/attachment-0001.html>