Search RPD Archives
[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Cloud Innovation Displays Very Poor, If Not Criminal, Netizenship
ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE
oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng
Mon May 25 21:53:29 UTC 2020
Dear Noah,
Am sure you would agree with me that this has nothing to do with the number
resource policy its a dispute between two companies and it should be
directed to the appropriate authority if need be.
The gentleman made an allegation and it was well responded too by the other
gentleman even though it is OUT OF SCOPE. That should be the end. We are
not dealing with dispute resolution here. The issues can be better
discussed elsewhere if need be but not on this mailing list. Am also sure
you would not expect we Co-chairs to fold our arm while any issue that is
OUT OF SCOPE becomes a free for all. AFRINIC has a formal complain process
for issues like this. Please this issue is *OUT OF SCOPE.*
Co-Chair
PDWG
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 2:05 PM Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> Abdulkarim,
>
> Excuse me, this is not out of scope as you seem to assume and as you have
> rightfully written, yes this rpd list is for "discussing policies and
> directly related issues" and to the contrary this issue directly related to
> number resources and should be discussed here by the working group beyond
> any mailing list.
>
> I would advise you to work the co-chair voluntary role of learning,
> observing and collecting useful information as relates to this discussion
> rather than trying to invoke the out of scope excuse in an attempt to stop
> the discussions prematurely.
>
> *./noah*
> neo - network engineering and operations
>
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 3:03 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <
> oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>> Please let us all be reminded that this mailing list is to discuss
>> policies and directly related issues.
>> There are other mailing lists where issues like this can be discussed but
>> definitely not here because the issue is *out of scope* for this
>> mailing list
>> Please, Co-Chairs would like us to put an end to this discussion.
>>
>> CO-Chairs
>> PDWG
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 12:31 PM Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This sounds like a personal attack in my opinion instead of a justified
>>> accusation. Why is this topic allowed to be discussed here when it’s rather
>>> irrelevant?. The parties involved have tendered formal apologies as
>>> reflected in their letters which is a sign of admittance and promotes the
>>> intent of good netizenship. It’s just irrelevant.
>>>
>>> On Monday, May 25, 2020, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello, community
>>>>
>>>> +1 @Gregoire and @Mark Tinka
>>>>
>>>> *cloud innovation* were allocated *big bunch of IPv4* space as a
>>>> *LIR* with *no ASN*. Interesting, and no *v6*
>>>>
>>>> While the bylaws defines LIR as followed:
>>>> ++++++
>>>> Local Internet Registry (LIR):
>>>> any Network Operator that provides Internet services to distinct
>>>> end-users and end-sites
>>>> ++++++
>>>>
>>>> I wonder which network does cloud innovation operate and which
>>>> internet services it provides to end-users and end-sites in *Africa*.
>>>>
>>>> How does this network *managing 3 x /11 of IPv4* *operate*?
>>>>
>>>> There is something here for the community to learn about.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Arnaud
>>>>
>>>> Le sam. 23 mai 2020 à 14:20, Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
>>>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Mark for exposing the details of the SEACOM AS37353 hijacking.
>>>>>
>>>>> I carefully read your report and also the Cloud Innovation Limited
>>>>> quick response including their attachments as justifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> I note that;
>>>>>
>>>>> ⁃ the service contract with Cloud Innovation covering the announcement
>>>>> of their prefixes by SEACOM AS37353 was terminated by SEACOM.
>>>>>
>>>>> ⁃ some stale IRR route objects existed after termination of the
>>>>> contract.
>>>>>
>>>>> ⁃ through some multiple layer distribution an organisation in Manila
>>>>> Philippines was “delegated“ an IP block from Cloud Innovation address space.
>>>>>
>>>>> ⁃ both upstream ISP and the customer in Manila set up a BGP session
>>>>> using SEACOM's AS37353 as the ASN of the Manila customer.
>>>>>
>>>>> ⁃ there was a prompt reaction from the involved parties that included
>>>>> apologies to SEACOM and the wider internet community.
>>>>>
>>>>> ⁃ there were promises from said parties to be a better netizen which
>>>>> would mean, them not hijacking other networks ASN's.
>>>>>
>>>>> ⁃ there was clear refusal to disclose the details of the customer in
>>>>> Manila Philippines who hijacked the affected SEACOM ASN.
>>>>>
>>>>> All put together, demonstrates that what happened was an impersonation
>>>>> and not a BGP configuration error, nor an oversight in checking the right
>>>>> to use of the SEACOM ASN.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Why is it that the real customer did not bother presenting its
>>>>> apologies to the community
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Why is there refusal to reveal customer’s details?
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Why is it that the said prefix is no longer seen in the routing
>>>>> table originated by the genius ASN or any other ASN?
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Which networks were involved and what happened to the end users?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can someone from AFRINIC explain what “delegation of IP block” mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: The self organised Internet knows how to deal with bad net
>>>>> citizens.!
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Gregoire Ehoumi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>> From: Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com>
>>>>> Date: 2020-05-09 5:43 a.m. (GMT-05:00)
>>>>> To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>
>>>>> Cc: "rpd at afrinic.net >> AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List" <
>>>>> rpd at afrinic.net>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Cloud Innovation Displays Very Poor, If Not
>>>>> Criminal, Netizenship
>>>>>
>>>>> To whom it may concern,
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 8, Mark Think posted a claim to multiple lists that Cloud
>>>>> Innovation was abusing an ASN (37353) that didn’t belong to them (Cloud
>>>>> Innovation) but rather belonged to Seacom through their acquisition of
>>>>> MacroLAN.
>>>>>
>>>>> While we regret this unfortunate incident, Mark’s claims that it was
>>>>> criminal or bad netizenship on the part of Cloud Innovation is without
>>>>> foundation and utterly incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> As shown below in the attached document from Paul Wollner(Ex-CTO of
>>>>> Macrolan who created IRR routes to allow Macrolan to announce Cloud
>>>>> Innovation's prefix); letter from Link Infinity International Ltd. (Link
>>>>> Infinity), A customer of Cloud Innovation; and attached LOA from LARUS
>>>>> authorizing IPDC Solutions to announce the prefix with origin AS134190.
>>>>> And a Letter from IPDC. This was an innocent mistake committed by third
>>>>> parties and had nothing to do with any action by Cloud Innovation or LARUS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here’s what happened:
>>>>>
>>>>> Cloud Innovation delegated a /24 to Link Infinity, an ISP in December
>>>>> 2019.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Link Infinity further delegated that same /24 to IPDC and asked Cloud
>>>>> innovation to issue an LOA, which we did. The LOA specifically required
>>>>> IPDC to use its own ASN to announce the space (AS134190).
>>>>>
>>>>> IPDC subsequently authorized one of its customers to use the said
>>>>> prefix.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For reasons still unknown to Cloud Innovation, IPDC and their customer
>>>>> set up a BGP session wherein their customer used AS37353 as the origin to
>>>>> advertise prefix 156.241.3.0/24.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Upon discovering the announcement, rather than contact Cloud
>>>>> Innovation, Mark contacted IPDC who provided him with an incomplete
>>>>> explanation blaming their customer and Mark, not realizing that Cloud
>>>>> Innovation was not the customer in question posted far and wide about the
>>>>> event. It is unclear to us why he chose to do this rather than contact us
>>>>> to try and resolve the issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A contributing factor to the erroneous BGP configuration by IPDC's
>>>>> customer may have been data contained in some outdated IRR route objects
>>>>> for 156.241.0.0/16 which have subsequently been deleted.
>>>>>
>>>>> As soon as we became aware of the problem (via Mark’s email), we began
>>>>> to investigate the situation. As soon as it was clear that this was the
>>>>> result of third-party actions, we reached out to Mark privately to let him
>>>>> know what we knew and that we were still investigating. We delayed making a
>>>>> public statement in order to try and ascertain all of the facts of the
>>>>> situation. We prefer not to make public statements based on incomplete
>>>>> information.
>>>>>
>>>>> We apologize to the community for our small part in this unfortunate
>>>>> incident and assure you that we work very hard to remain good netizens and
>>>>> will address any concerns promptly when they come to our attention.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lu Heng
>>>>> CEO
>>>>> Cloud Innovations
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached:
>>>>> 1. Letter from Paul Wollner
>>>>> 2. Letter from Link Infinity
>>>>> 3. LOA Issued to IPDC Solutions for announcing 156.241.3.0/24 from
>>>>> AS134190
>>>>> 4. Letter from IPDC
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI: LARUS is proving IP management service for Cloud Innovation,
>>>>> while LARUS is also providing IP management service to other third parties
>>>>> in all regions, for full disclosure, LARUS and Cloud Innovation are headed
>>>>> by same CEO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Content of those letters have been posted here for your convince:
>>>>>
>>>>> *IPDC:*
>>>>>
>>>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE [Perusal of Cloud Innovation Ltd]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IPDC Solutions Pte Ltd (IPDC) is a customer of Cloud Innovation Ltd
>>>>> and over the course of our corporate relationship we were given the
>>>>> authority to use address block 156.241.3.0/24 since 9th December
>>>>> 2019.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12th December 2019, we have delegated that address block to our
>>>>> client. Following which our client further instructed us to announce the
>>>>> prefix with AS37353. In good will after minimal verification through WHOIS’
>>>>> IP Prefix we have proceeded to execute our client’s request.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7th May 2020 IPDC was then contacted by SEACOM, the legitimate
>>>>> holder of record for that ASN and have since learned that the customer’s
>>>>> use of that ASN was erroneous and not permitted by SEACOM and immediate
>>>>> action has been taken to rectify this situation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IPDC would like to apologize for our lack of attention in conducting
>>>>> thorough verification and wish to highlight that the involvement of Cloud
>>>>> Innovation Ltd in the entire process was providing the addresses to us and
>>>>> that we truly apologize as we understand that this incident may have
>>>>> indirectly implicated Cloud Innovation Ltd.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IPDC however, does not wish to disclose our client information and our
>>>>> client information shall remain confidential under present circumstances.
>>>>> Once again, we apologize for our shortcomings.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Link Infinity:*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To whom it may concern,
>>>>>
>>>>> We at HK Infinity International Ltd are a customer of Cloud Innovation
>>>>> and in the course received rights to use 156.241.3.0/24 from them.
>>>>> Beginning December, 2019, we delegated the right to announce this prefix to
>>>>> IPDC Solutions Pte Ltd. (IPDC). We asked Cloud Innovation to provide an LOA
>>>>> authorizing them to announce the space which was subsequently received.
>>>>> IPDC subsequently and without our knowledge delegated this space to one of
>>>>> their customers and allowed them to originate it from AS37353.
>>>>>
>>>>> This announcement was not authorized by us, nor is it permitted by the
>>>>> LOA provided by Cloud Innovation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, we were not aware of the situation until after it had
>>>>> already been resolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was never our intent to violate the LOA or to allow the prefix to
>>>>> be announced from a hijacked ASN. We do not condone this and apologize
>>>>> sincerely to the community for what has happened here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincere Apologies,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Paul Wollner:*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 8 May 2020
>>>>>
>>>>> TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
>>>>>
>>>>> In the light of the recent email on NAPAfrica mailing list, I would
>>>>> just like to clear the air.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The IP route objects were created by myself for Cloud Innovation when
>>>>> they signed up as a client of Macrolan ( now SEACOM) as they didn't have
>>>>> their own AS.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the time I was working for Macrolan (now SEACOM). I left the
>>>>> employment of SEACOM in October 2019.
>>>>>
>>>>> It appears that when Cloud Innovation's contract with SEACOM came to
>>>>> an end, the route objects were never cleaned up.
>>>>>
>>>>> This occurred after I left SEACOM's employment. Since leaving, I have
>>>>> no access to these objects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Wollner
>>>>> 082-786-9776
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 22:10, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not one to b**ch & moan in public, but per subject, I could not
>>>>>> let this one slide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if you get this from multiple mailing lists, apologies for that -
>>>>>> I'm just trying to make sure that this reaches as wide an audience as
>>>>>> possible, on the continent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SEACOM (AS37100) acquired MacroLan (AS37353) a couple of years ago.
>>>>>> MacroLan is now part of the SEACOM family, and while we are in the process
>>>>>> of integrating that network into AS37100, some existing services continue
>>>>>> to be delivered on AS37353 until that exercise is completed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of the customers that AS37353 was providing services to was Cloud
>>>>>> Innovation, in Cape Town. From a routing perspective, because Cloud
>>>>>> Innovation had no AS number for this service, all of their IP address space
>>>>>> was being originated by AS37353, on their behalf.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In December of 2019, AS37353 ceased providing services to Cloud
>>>>>> Innovation. That is 6 months ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In recent days, it came to SEACOM's attention that some of Cloud
>>>>>> Innovation's IP address space was being originated by AS37353 -
>>>>>> specifically, 156.241.3.0/24 - even though we were sure that they
>>>>>> were no longer a customer of AS37353 since December of 2019. At first, we
>>>>>> thought this was a cached entry in a number of popular looking glasses, but
>>>>>> then every looking glass had the same entry, which made this an unlikely
>>>>>> bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As of yesterday afternoon, see below what Telia's looking glass was
>>>>>> saying about this prefix:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Path #1: Received by speaker 0
>>>>>> 4809 134190 37353
>>>>>> 2.255.249.42 (metric 2134) from 2.255.253.101 (80.91.242.40)
>>>>>> Origin incomplete, localpref 200, valid, internal, best,
>>>>>> group-best, import-candidate
>>>>>> Communities:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1299:431
>>>>>> (RPKI state Unknown)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1299:1000 1299:30000 1299:30600 23456:20413 45352:4500 45352:9204
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But when I run a traceroute from my house to that prefix, it clearly
>>>>>> was not ending up in Cape Town, where AS37353's main operation resides:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MacBook-Pro-7:~ tinka$ traceroute -I 156.241.3.1
>>>>>> traceroute to 156.241.3.1 (156.241.3.1), 64 hops max, 72 byte packets
>>>>>> 1 172.16.0.254 (172.16.0.254) 14.824 ms 11.522 ms 3.525 ms
>>>>>> 2 xe-1-3-0-1064.er-01-jnb.za.seacomnet.com (105.22.37.13) 5.620
>>>>>> ms 9.714 ms 9.887 ms
>>>>>> 3 ce-0-2-0-0.cr-02-jnb.za.seacomnet.com (105.16.28.2) 175.232 ms
>>>>>> 172.699 ms 175.896 ms
>>>>>> 4 xe-0-0-0-8.cr-02-cpt.za.seacomnet.com (105.16.9.182) 164.496
>>>>>> ms 163.578 ms 163.546 ms
>>>>>> 5 105.16.14.153 (105.16.14.153) 169.812 ms 171.272 ms 177.115 ms
>>>>>> 6 xe-0-0-0-0.br-02-lhr.uk.seacomnet.com (105.16.34.253) 168.911
>>>>>> ms 172.958 ms 165.165 ms
>>>>>> 7 82.112.115.169 (82.112.115.169) 172.700 ms 176.482 ms 174.375
>>>>>> ms
>>>>>> 8 ae-17.r05.londen12.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.2.147) 672.099
>>>>>> ms 613.617 ms 615.109 ms
>>>>>> 9 ae-2.r24.londen12.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.4.244) 181.952 ms
>>>>>> 183.087 ms 187.302 ms
>>>>>> 10 ae-16.r20.frnkge13.de.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.3.13) 190.511 ms
>>>>>> 185.579 ms 187.058 ms
>>>>>> 11 ae-3.r20.sngpsi07.sg.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.4.17) 520.882 ms
>>>>>> 613.982 ms 615.275 ms
>>>>>> 12 ae-9.r24.tkokhk01.hk.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.7.67) 612.301 ms
>>>>>> 586.886 ms 436.711 ms
>>>>>> 13 ae-1.r03.tkokhk01.hk.bb.gin.ntt.net (129.250.6.98) 614.470 ms
>>>>>> 613.416 ms 614.281 ms
>>>>>> 14 ce-0-3-0-3.r03.tkokhk01.hk.ce.gin.ntt.net (203.131.241.126)
>>>>>> 614.128 ms 613.661 ms 615.416 ms
>>>>>> 15 * * *
>>>>>> 16 * * *
>>>>>> 17 156.241.3.1 (156.241.3.1) 494.400 ms 410.180 ms *
>>>>>> MacBook-Pro-7:~ tinka$
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we, then, realized that this was a fraudulent use of MacroLan's
>>>>>> AS37353, to which we had given no express permission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As luck would have it, due to my days living and working in Malaysia,
>>>>>> I know the good folk that operate AS134190 (IPDC Solutions), who was the
>>>>>> upstream providing transit for this prefix. So I rang them up yesterday
>>>>>> afternoon, told them what was happening, and within the hour, they got that
>>>>>> eBGP session shutdown. I am most grateful to them for their quick response
>>>>>> and immediate understanding of what was going on. Even with all the
>>>>>> technology we have today, it, many times, comes down to having good friends
>>>>>> in good places.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, it turns out the ISP that had acquired this prefix from Cloud
>>>>>> Innovation is based in Manila, Philippines. When IPDC delivered their
>>>>>> transit service to them in Manila, that ISP informed them that they should
>>>>>> use AS37353 for the eBGP session. Yes, one could argue that IPDC should
>>>>>> have done their checks to ensure that the AS number being provided by their
>>>>>> customer belongs to them, but to be honest, I'm not too bothered about that
>>>>>> compared to Cloud Innovation's thinking that it was okay to use another
>>>>>> network's AS number in order to deliver their services to their customers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IPDC confirm that this service was activated for the Manila ISP in
>>>>>> December of 2019, right around the time Cloud Innovation's service with
>>>>>> SEACOM, in Cape Town, ended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As it currently stands, the ISP in Manila is now off the Internet,
>>>>>> with some 12 paying customers currently without service. Their excuse -
>>>>>> they do not have an AS number of their own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IPDC tried to find out why the ISP in Manila thought that it was okay
>>>>>> to use another network's AS number for their service, and as it turns out,
>>>>>> the network engineer at the Manila ISP that set this up has since left the
>>>>>> company. All the ones currently there do not have any history about all of
>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently, 156.241.3.0/24 is not in the global BGP table:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lg-01-ams.nl>sh ip bgp 156.241.3.0/24
>>>>>> % Network not in table
>>>>>> lg-01-ams.nl>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lg-01-nbo.ke>sh ip bgp 156.241.3.0/24
>>>>>> % Network not in table
>>>>>> lg-01-nbo.ke>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lg-01-cpt.za>sh ip bgp 156.241.3.0/24
>>>>>> % Network not in table
>>>>>> lg-01-cpt.za>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That Cloud Innovation thought it was okay for them to use MacroLan's
>>>>>> AS number to originate their own prefixes into the global BGP is as morally
>>>>>> reprehensible as it is technologically distasteful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SEACOM have been working very closely with AFRINIC to delete previous
>>>>>> route objects from their IRR that certify a relationship between Cloud
>>>>>> Innovation's parent /16 aggregates that cover this prefix, and AS37353, but
>>>>>> this is one of those objects that cannot be removed via the MyAFRINIC
>>>>>> portal, and requires manual intervention from AFRINIC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not, personally, spoken to the proprietors of Cloud Innovation
>>>>>> and/or Outside Heaven, as I don't see how anything could explain this with
>>>>>> any degree of justification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For now, I will find some beer to wipe the foul taste from my mouth,
>>>>>> while we (SEACOM) consider what to do about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yes, for those who are wondering, RPKI's ROV would not have
>>>>>> prevented this, in its current form. This is AS hijacking, and ROV, today,
>>>>>> tries to solve the prefix-hijacking problem, first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> Kind regards.
>>>>> Lu
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> 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/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
>
--
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/20200525/177690c5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list