[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 168, Issue 88

[innocent adriko]

I am in opposition of the IPv4 Inter RIR transfer because it is not really
a fair detail to the African region.
AFRINIC is the only owning most of the remaining IPv4 resources available
in the world, so there is more of AFRINIC to give than the other RIRs to
offer.



Innocent.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 13:39 <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: IPv4 Inter RIR Resource Transfer (Comprehensive Scope)

>       (Topsy Bello)

>

>

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

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:37:59 +0000 (UTC)

> From: Topsy Bello <topsybello at yahoo.com>

> To: Ahile shagba francis <ahilefranc at gmail.com>,  Emem William

>         <dwizard65 at gmail.com>

> Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>

> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Inter RIR Resource Transfer (Comprehensive

>         Scope)

> Message-ID: <1807495135.3361179.1600339079877 at mail.yahoo.com>

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

>

>  IPV4 inter RIR Resource Transfer (comprehensive scope)??

> we need to answer the following questions and critically weigh the outcome

>

> 1 details regarding the transfer??

> 2.what are the criteria??

> 3. does the transfer follow AFRINIC or the receiving parties policy?

>

> for me its a BIG NO to this policy

>

> cheers

>     On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 11:25:33 AM GMT+1, Emem William <

> dwizard65 at gmail.com> wrote:

>

>  Dear all,?

> In my?opinion, this new policy proposal is not necessary because the

> Resource Transfer Policy would already support a bi-directional inter-RIR

> Transfer Policy which is capable of encouraging growth and smooth business

> operations within in the region.

> CheersEmem William

>

> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:17 Ahile shagba francis <ahilefranc at gmail.com>

> wrote:

>

> Lets? look at it from another point,If it is the other region?s policy to

> be applied when the resources are transferred from that region, it is then

> glaring that this could cause many confusions.We don't need to support

> such.Let's be guided.

>

>

> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 10:25 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: RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address

> ? ? ? Space AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (Ben Maddison)

> ? ?2. Re: RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address

> ? ? ? Space AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (Patrick Okui)

>

>

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

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 11:08:16 +0200

> From: Ben Maddison <benm at workonline.africa>

> To: Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>

> Cc: Marius Andioc via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC

> ? ? ? ? Address Space AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02

> Message-ID: <20200917090816.nwkt44vwwjaun6wo at benm-laptop>

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

>

> Hi all,

>

> I am currently undecided on this policy.

> As others have pointed out, the objections to the proposal on the basis

> of centralization of control are bogus: the current policy does not add

> any additional control over the routing system beyond that which AFRINIC

> already has as the result of RPKI origin validation deployment today.

>

> I agree with the fundamental basis of the proposal that:

> a)? it is generally undesirable to route traffic for bogon destinations;

> ? ? and

> b)? the RPKI is the best fit we have to securely communicate what is and

> ? ? isn't a bogon to relying parties in order to implement the necessary

> ? ? routing policy.

>

> However, it is also the case that the consequences (in terms of service

> availability for end users) of a de-registration would be substantially

> greater if the de-registration is accompanied by the issuance of an AS0

> ROA for that address space.

>

> This is true for the following reasons:

> - Non-RIR managed IRR databases exist that allow the creation of

> ? route(6) objects that are not covered by an RIR allocation

> - Many networks do not filter by prefix based on IRR data at all

> - Those that do generally do not filter their transits by prefix

> - Transit-free networks generally do not filter their peers (or at least

> ? their transit-free peers) by prefix

>

> Thus, today, a de-registration probably results in a partial outage that

> can be worked-around, rather than a near-total outage that cannot.

> This is either a feature or a bug in the policy, depending on your point

> of view regarding a specific de-registration case!

>

> I would suggest the following modifications, in order to alleviate some

> of the risks inherent in the current draft:

> 1.? The automatic creation of AS0 ROAs should be limited to space that

> ? ? has never been allocated by an RIR or part of a legacy allocation.

> 2.? AFRINIC should require the explicit consent of the previous holder

> ? ? to issue AS0 ROAs in respect of re-claimed, returned, etc, space.

> 3.? Any ROAs issued under this policy should be issued and published in

> ? ? a way that makes it operationally easy for an relying party to

> ? ? ignore them (probably by issuing under a separate TA)

>

> With the above amendments I would be inclined to support the proposal.

>

> Cheers,

>

> Ben

>

> On 09/17, Mark Elkins wrote:

> > I support the RPKI ROA policy as written. I understand the technical

> aspects

> > of the policy. I have a feeling that those objecting may not completely

> > understand the technical aspects which is why they are objecting.

> >

> > AFRINIC's job is to properly document the resources they have been

> provided

> > by ICANN/IANA and this is simply part of the job. When new resources are

> > provided to AFRINIC, they label it as such (AS0, etc). When it is then

> > allocated/assigned to a member, the AS0 RPKI is removed. All this means

> is

> > that the unallocated/unassigned resources that are with AFRINIC can be

> > (optionally) identified as such and thus can not be easily misused by bad

> > actors. This also means that when they are allocated/assigned to members,

> > they are less lightly to have been made "dirty".

> >

> > On 2020/09/17 08:26, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:

> > > Dear all,

> > >

> > > The AFRINIC as an organization specifically focuses?on the registration

> > > database and thereby?having knowledge of where the prefix belongs to

> and

> > > AFRINIC should just focus on this role and should not engage?in

> > > authenticating or the authorization of various services. If such rights

> > > are given to any organization, they have?the right to assign prefixes

> to

> > > servers hence, having?control of the routing database at which a

> > > technical or human error will lead to an immense catastrophe to the

> > > internet society. This control is basically the specific definition of

> > > centralization. This centralization is the major reason why most

> > > providers do not trust the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). I

> > > am still in opposition to this policy proposal.

> > >

> > > Elvis.

> > >

> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:01 PM Darwin Costa <dc at darwincosta.com

> > > <mailto:dc at darwincosta.com>> wrote:

> > >

> > >? ? ?Cmon folks?.!

> > >

> > >? ? ?@Elvis, I really don?t see your point here and also don?t really

> > >? ? ?understand why are you opposing against this proposal.

> > >

> > >? ? ?As mentioned further on the thread - RPKI won?t change Afrnic?s

> > >? ? ?role at all?. Instead this proposal will certainly contribute to a

> > >? ? ?more secure routing advertisement.

> > >

> > >? ? ?As such, other RIR?s have successfully implemented this in order

> > >? ? ?to protect our garden so called ?The Internet?.

> > >

> > >? ? ?Darwin-.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >? ? ?On 17 Sep 2020, at 05:42, Fernando Frediani <

> fhfrediani at gmail.com

> > > >? ? ?<mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >? ? ?I think there is a serious issue by some people totally

> > > >? ? ?misunderstanding what RPKI actually is.

> > > >

> > > >? ? ?Some arguments saying something like 'Afrinic will centralize

> > > >? ? ?control of the internet and should not have such power' don't

> > > >? ? ?have relation to what what this proposal intends and the reasons

> > > >? ? ?to oppose it are not tied to real possible problems pointed.

> > > >

> > > >? ? ?This proposal only follows what have been done in APNIC and

> > > >? ? ?LACNIC and is a natural move to make an internet more secure and

> > > >? ? ?avoid organizations to use space that is not assigned to anyone

> else.

> > > >? ? ?Therefore I support this proposal.

> > > >

> > > >? ? ?Fernando

> > > >

> > > >? ? ?On 16/09/2020 20:42, Noah wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >? ? ?On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 2:30 AM Ibeanusi Elvis

> > > > >? ? ?<ibeanusielvis at gmail.com <mailto:ibeanusielvis at gmail.com>>

> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >? ? ? ? ?I am strongly in opposition to this RPKI ROA proposal,

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >? ? ?You oppose yet....

> > > > >

> > > > >? ? ? ? ??issuing an AS0 for AFRINIC address space

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >? ? ?You must be clear on which AFRINIC address space rather than

> > > > >? ? ?presenting a rather vague statement.

> > > > >

> > > > >? ? ?The proposal is very clear and explicit and the AFRINIC space

> in

> > > > >? ? ?question is that which has not yet been allocated or assigned

> to

> > > > >? ? ?any entity or resource member.

> > > > >

> > > > >? ? ?I will quote for you section 2.0 of the proposal as written

> below;

> > > > >

> > > > >? ? ?*2.0 Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem*

> > > > >? ? ?*

> > > > >? ? ?*This proposal instructs AFRINIC to create ROAs for all

> > > > >? ? ?*unallocated and unassigned address space under its control.*

> > > > >? ? ?This will enable networks performing RPKI-based BGP Origin

> > > > >? ? ?Validation to easily reject all the bogon announcements

> covering

> > > > >? ? ?resources managed by AFRINIC.

> > > > >

> > > > >? ? ?So what are you talking about?

> > > > >

> > > > >? ? ?Noah

> > > > >

> > > > >? ? ?_______________________________________________

> > > > >? ? ?RPD mailing list

> > > > >? ? ?RPD at afrinic.net? <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.afrinic.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frpd&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca48324a7026842948aff08d85abbfbd8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637359110720490840&sdata=mOjgUTIarKfPnsD2h0TtixnR51E4wzIwqoo6rONHW%2FI%3D&reserved=0

> >

> > > >? ? ?_______________________________________________

> > > >? ? ?RPD mailing list

> > > >? ? ?RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

> > > >? ? ?

> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.afrinic.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frpd&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca48324a7026842948aff08d85abbfbd8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637359110720510827&sdata=jlnsXCK7dATX4Jcg48%2BhurUnj1E5umTa2RZq7IMsb%2Fs%3D&reserved=0

> > >

> > >? ? ?_______________________________________________

> > >? ? ?RPD mailing list

> > >? ? ?RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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

> > --

> >

> > Mark James ELKINS? -? Posix Systems - (South) Africa

> > mje at posix.co.za?????? Tel: +27.826010496 <tel:+27826010496>

> > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za

> >

> > Posix SystemsVCARD for MJ Elkins

> >

>

> > _______________________________________________

> > RPD mailing list

> > RPD at afrinic.net

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

>

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

> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...

> Name: signature.asc

> Type: application/pgp-signature

> Size: 833 bytes

> Desc: not available

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200917/77e69095/attachment-0001.sig

> >

>

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

>

> Message: 2

> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:24:06 +0300

> From: "Patrick Okui" <pokui at psg.com>

> To: "Ibeanusi Elvis" <ibeanusielvis at gmail.com>

> Cc: Marius Andioc via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC

> ? ? ? ? Address Space AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02

> Message-ID: <91E9F948-7128-4E24-903B-2033484E1DC3 at psg.com>

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

>

> Dear Elvis,

>

> Thanks for speaking up and clarifying this viewpoint. Much as your

> concerns

> aren?t directly connected to this proposal but to RPKI in general I

> think

> they?re shared by many and worth addressing. (No I?m not one of the

> authors of

> this proposal).

>

> To have a mutual understanding (or agreement to disagree) we need to

> iron out a

> few points. Apologies for the long email that doesn?t discuss the

> policy

> itself.

>

> 1. Allocation of IP addresses (and other resources) is in your words

> ? ? ?_?centralised?_. I prefer the word ?hierarchal?. I.E IANA

> has the global pool

> ? ? ?of IP(v4 & v6) addresses. It then hands it out to RIRs like

> AFRINIC. LIRS like

> ? ? ?ISPs then apply from the RIR. End users either get allocated

> address space out

> ? ? ?of the LIR pool or can get addresses directly from the RIR and get

> those

> ? ? ?routed. So, AFRINIC (and other RIRs) are not responsible to

> allocate IP

> ? ? ?addresses to servers, but you can?t allocate a public IP address

> to a server

> ? ? ?without somehow following this chain. Kindly confirm if you?re

> fine with this

> ? ? ?state of affairs.

>

> 2. I see you?re using a gmail address and you used the web interface

> to compose

> ? ? ?your email. To do that your browser used SSL. The system that lets

> SSL work is

> ? ? ?the X509 certificate system. This is another _?centralised?_ or

> hierarchal

> ? ? ?system. Your browser or OS has a set of root trust information

> (CA?s). These

> ? ? ?CAs can create ?signatures? (crypto information) that says that

> a particular

> ? ? ?key XYZ is allowed to secure a domain (e.g gmail.com). They also

> can create

> ? ? ?signatures that say a key ABC can also create signatures like their

> own. In

> ? ? ?this case, gmail could chose to go to whoever runs ABC to get their

> X509

> ? ? ?certificate instead of to any of the roots themselves. Your browser

> is able to

> ? ? ?follow the chain of trust. Note that x509 aka SSL has methods by

> which CAs can

> ? ? ?publish crypto information that revokes previously assigned

> certificates if

> ? ? ?they were allocated in error. Please also confirm if this is

> something you?re

> ? ? ?fine with.

>

> 3. RPKI technically isn?t just for ROA validation. It is just another

> public

> ? ? ?key infrastructure with *hierarchy* (you prefer the term

> centralised). It also

> ? ? ?(like x509) requires some sort of root anchor or anchors. These are

> what are

> ? ? ?installed in each client that wants to verify any of the crypto

> information in

> ? ? ?the system. This isn?t new, DNSSEC works the same way. Once you

> have well

> ? ? ?known/established roots each of these systems (DNSSEC, RPKI) have

> ways to

> ? ? ?delegate authority for some information to the holder of a

> different public

> ? ? ?key. And this goes down the chain. The decision of who the root

> anchors for

> ? ? ?RPKI was debated on public lists like these and finally at the NRO

> it was

> ? ? ?agreed that the easiest and cleanest solution was for all RIRs to

> have a root

> ? ? ?0/0 anchor. All RPKI validator clients simply have these anchors

> configured and

> ? ? ?can therefore validate all crypto in the RPKI system.

>

> Kindly confirm if we?re on the same page (at least via understanding)

> of these

> three long points. Effectively the RPKI system in my opinion is more

> trustworthy than the x509 one that secures the SSL you used to write

> your

> email. If you look at your OS/browser there are quite a number of root

> CAs

> there that given the choice I personally wouldn?t trust.

>

> Just like DNS, all these systems need hierarchy to operate. It is not

> logical

> to say you trust x509 (SSL) but not RPKI. Or that you?re fine using

> the

> internet with its allocation of IP but do not want to secure those

> allocations

> with a system that follows that same heirachy. Note that we haven?t

> even

> discussed the fact that publishing ROA information in RPKI is optional

> for ISPs

> and end users. We?re just discussing the trust hierarchy.

>

> On 17 Sep 2020, at 9:26 EAT, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:

>

> > Dear all,

> >

> > The AFRINIC as an organization specifically focuses on the

> > registration database and thereby having knowledge of where the prefix

> > belongs to and AFRINIC should just focus on this role and should not

> > engage in authenticating or the authorization of various services. If

> > such rights are given to any organization, they have the right to

> > assign prefixes to servers hence, having control of the routing

> > database at which a technical or human error will lead to an immense

> > catastrophe to the internet society.

> > This control is basically the specific definition of centralization.

> > This centralization is the major reason why most providers do not

> > trust the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). I am still in

> > opposition to this policy proposal.

> >

> > Elvis.

> >

> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:01 PM Darwin Costa <dc at darwincosta.com>

> > wrote:

> >

> >> Cmon folks?.!

> >>

> >> @Elvis, I really don?t see your point here and also don?t really

> >> understand why are you opposing against this proposal.

> >>

> >> As mentioned further on the thread - RPKI won?t change Afrnic?s

> >> role at

> >> all?. Instead this proposal will certainly contribute to a more

> >> secure

> >> routing advertisement.

> >>

> >> As such, other RIR?s have successfully implemented this in order to

> >> protect our garden so called ?The Internet?.

> >>

> >> Darwin-.

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> On 17 Sep 2020, at 05:42, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

> >> wrote:

> >>

> >> I think there is a serious issue by some people totally

> >> misunderstanding

> >> what RPKI actually is.

> >>

> >> Some arguments saying something like 'Afrinic will centralize control

> >> of

> >> the internet and should not have such power' don't have relation to

> >> what

> >> what this proposal intends and the reasons to oppose it are not tied

> >> to

> >> real possible problems pointed.

> >>

> >> This proposal only follows what have been done in APNIC and LACNIC

> >> and is

> >> a natural move to make an internet more secure and avoid

> >> organizations to

> >> use space that is not assigned to anyone else.

> >> Therefore I support this proposal.

> >>

> >> Fernando

> >> On 16/09/2020 20:42, Noah wrote:

> >>

> >>

> >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 2:30 AM Ibeanusi Elvis

> >> <ibeanusielvis at gmail.com>

> >> wrote:

> >>

> >>>

> >>> I am strongly in opposition to this RPKI ROA proposal,

> >>>

> >>

> >> You oppose yet....

> >>

> >>

> >>>? issuing an AS0 for AFRINIC address space

> >>>

> >>

> >> You must be clear on which AFRINIC address space rather than

> >> presenting a

> >> rather vague statement.

> >>

> >> The proposal is very clear and explicit and the AFRINIC space in

> >> question

> >> is that which has not yet been allocated or assigned to any entity or

> >> resource member.

> >>

> >> I will quote for you section 2.0 of the proposal as written below;

> >>

> >> *2.0 Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem*

> >>

> >> This proposal instructs AFRINIC to create ROAs for all *unallocated

> >> and

> >> unassigned address space under its control.* This will enable

> >> networks

> >> performing RPKI-based BGP Origin Validation to easily reject all the

> >> bogon

> >> announcements covering resources managed by AFRINIC.

> >>

> >> So what are you talking about?

> >>

> >> Noah

> >>

> >>

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> RPD mailing

> >> listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> >> <

> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.afrinic.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frpd&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca48324a7026842948aff08d85abbfbd8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637359110720490840&sdata=mOjgUTIarKfPnsD2h0TtixnR51E4wzIwqoo6rONHW%2FI%3D&reserved=0

> >

> >>

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> RPD mailing list

> >> RPD at afrinic.net

> >>

> >>

> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.afrinic.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frpd&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ca48324a7026842948aff08d85abbfbd8%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637359110720510827&sdata=jlnsXCK7dATX4Jcg48%2BhurUnj1E5umTa2RZq7IMsb%2Fs%3D&reserved=0

> >>

> >>

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> 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

>

>

> --

> patrick

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

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200917/63c1c6e8/attachment.html

> >

>

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

>

> Subject: Digest Footer

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>

>

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

>

> End of RPD Digest, Vol 168, Issue 82

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

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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

>

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

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200917/e98e256a/attachment.html

> >

>

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

>

> Subject: Digest Footer

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>

>

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

>

> End of RPD Digest, Vol 168, Issue 88

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

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200917/2d34f38e/attachment-0001.html>