Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 168, Issue 88
Mark Elkins
mje at posix.co.za
Thu Sep 17 11:33:22 UTC 2020
You can't change the past - only the Future.
A proper bi-directional Transfer policy allows us to obtain IP resources
for our needs. Remember, what is available around the world is much more
than what we have left.
I support a Transfer policy
On 2020/09/17 12:46, innocent adriko wrote:
> 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
> <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
> rpd at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rpd-owner at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto:topsybello at yahoo.com>>
> To: Ahile shagba francis <ahilefranc at gmail.com
> <mailto:ahilefranc at gmail.com>>, Emem William
> <dwizard65 at gmail.com <mailto:dwizard65 at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Inter RIR Resource Transfer (Comprehensive
> Scope)
> Message-ID: <1807495135.3361179.1600339079877 at mail.yahoo.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
> ? ? ? ? rpd at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ? ? ? ? rpd-owner at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto:mje at posix.co.za>>
> Cc: Marius Andioc via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto: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>
> > > <mailto: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>
> > > >? ? ?<mailto: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> <mailto: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>?
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>>
> > >? ? ?https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > RPD mailing list
> > > RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> > --
> >
> > Mark James ELKINS? -? Posix Systems - (South) Africa
> > mje at posix.co.za???? <http://mje@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 <mailto: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 <mailto:pokui at psg.com>>
> To: "Ibeanusi Elvis" <ibeanusielvis at gmail.com
> <mailto:ibeanusielvis at gmail.com>>
> Cc: Marius Andioc via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <http://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
> <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
> >>
> listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> <http://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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 168, Issue 88
> ************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200917/e0d0c0ad/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: abessive_logo.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6410 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200917/e0d0c0ad/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: QR-MJElkins.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200917/e0d0c0ad/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the RPD
mailing list