[rpd] AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT02 - Resource Transfer Policy

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

I'm sorry, but how come can be out of the scope if the current policy in the CPM already has this? I has been in scope for many years!

 

5.7.4.3 Transferred IPv4 legacy resources will no longer be regarded as legacy resources. 

 

Removing that we not only go against the AFRINIC interests, but also against those already did a transfer before. How we are going to resolve their status? Or we will just ignore them and discriminate?

 

The difference is not small:
They don’t need to pay for the membership
They don’t need to follow the CPM
 

This is against CPM 3.2.3 Fairness.

 

As I said before the legacy is a bigger problem in terms of legacy resources not being transferred, but *that* can be solved in a different proposal. This proposal can *keep resolving it* for those being transferred, the same we are doing now in CPM 5.7.4.3.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 29/9/20 5:12, "lucilla fornaro" <lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com> escribió:

 

In my opinion, no one is trying to sweep it under the carpet. The legacy status is out of the scope here. As suggested by one of the authors, RIPE indicates AFrinic the references and recommendations needed to handle legacy space; the RIPE NCC provides different services to  Legacy Internet Resource Holders.

It is out of any doubt that the legacy problem is complicated, but this proposal suggests a way to solve the concern for transfers.

 

regards,

 

Lucilla

 

Il giorno mar 29 set 2020 alle ore 10:15 Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> ha scritto:

How can the legacy status be out of the scope if this proposal is exactly changing the opposite way it has been so far and is in several other places.
We cannot sweep it under the carpet and try to hide from this topic. If this keeps the way was changed at the last minute it must be brought back to discussion as it was a major change that cannot be simply ignored and "left for later".
Fernando

On 28/09/2020 21:20, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:

Dear Taiwo and everyone, 

 

I believe your revision with the proposal and also the ejection of the section 5.7.5 will resolve the complications that the proposal might have brought about as pointed out by some in the RDP Community. 

 

Likewise, the revision of section 5.7.3.1 from "the compliance with the policies of receiving RIR” to “in compliance with the relevant policies”, hence, making the Inter-RIR transfer of resources smooth and efficient. And as pointed out the legacy status management is out of the scope of this policy proposal. The proposal to formulate a service level for legacy holders at various levels in accordance with the fees paid is a tremendous idea. 

 

Thanks. 

ELVIS. 

 

Dear Taiwo, 

 

Thank you for your revision, I think that removing section 5.7.5 solves most of the issues claimed by some members, it would be better to leave operational matters to the staff.

 

Also, I agree that the legacy status management is out of the scope of this policy proposal, it would be appropriate to discuss it on a different proposal and/or take the RIPE NCC as evidence/source.

 

Regards,

 

Lucilla

 

Il giorno mar 29 set 2020 alle ore 04:42 Taiwo Oyewande <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com> ha scritto:

Dear Jordi:

 

Thank you for your feedback, and both of us have been taking it seriously.

 

Please see our reply to your point:

 

We agree with your point that we should make an editorial change for the following：

 

Firstly, for 5.7.3.1, from 

The source must be the current rightful holder of the IPv4 address resources registered with any RIR, and shall be in compliance with the policies of the receiving RIR, and shall not be involved in any disputes as to the status of those resources.

 

To

 

 The source must be the current and rightful holder of the IPv4 address resources registered with any RIR, in compliance with the relevant policies, and shall not be involved in any disputes as to those resources' status.

 

And for 5.7.4.1, from 

 

A transfer from another RIR to AFRINIC requires a need-based evaluation. AFRINIC must approve the recipient's need for the IPv4 number resources. In order for an organization to qualify for receiving a transfer, it must first go through the process of justifying its IPv4 resource needs before AFRINIC. That is to say, the organization must justify and demonstrate before AFRINIC its initial/additional allocation/assignment usage, as applicable, according to the policies in force. 

A transfer from AFRINIC to another RIR must follow the policy of the receiving RIR.

 

To:

 

A transfer from another RIR to AFRINIC requires a need-based evaluation. AFRINIC must approve the recipient's need for the IPv4 number resources. In order for an organization to qualify for receiving a transfer, it must first go through the process of justifying its IPv4 resource needs before AFRINIC. That is to say, the organization must justify and demonstrate before AFRINIC its initial/additional allocation/assignment usage, as applicable, according to the policies in force. 

A transfer from AFRINIC to another RIR must follow the relevant policies.

 

As for 5.7.3.3 and 5.7.4.2, we do not see the necessity to remove them, and we believe it actually makes the policy clearer.

 

We agree in removing section 5.7.5, as we recognize that this is out of the policy's scope, and operational matters should be left to the staff.

 

And we will also correct the grammar mistake of 5.7.3.2.

 

5.7.3.2 Source entities are not eligible to receive any further IPv4 allocations or assignments from AFRINIC for a period of twelve (12) months after a transfer is approved.

 

As for the legacy space part, we believe that at this moment, compatibility is the most essential aspect since both ARIN and RIPE have a transfer policy that indicates legacy space remains legacy. 

 

We consider legacy status management as out of the scope of this policy proposal. We suggest you to (or anyone who feels the need) propose a service level to legacy holders at different levels regarding the fees they have been paying. 

 

If you think this’s necessary, perhaps you can take reference from RIPE NCC’s legacy policy: (see https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/legacy-resources/ripe-ncc-services-to-legacy-internet-resource-holders ), and we hope that you recognize that this is a minor objection. We have addressed it by inviting you to propose a more comprehensive legacy solution to the community but not forcefully done in the transfer policy, just like the other regions did not.

 

Should the Chair allow, we would address the above point raised by you before passing the last call.

 

Kind regards




On 28 Sep 2020, at 12:37, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

 

I don’t disagree that we need one. That’s why I was the first one to work on this matter. And as said, I will be happy to support this *one* or *any* proposal *if* it is functional, not if will make us waste our time because other RIRs will say “I’m not going to use your procedure, we, the 4 other RIRs have already one in place. Are you going to cover our cost for developing a special procedure with you?”, not to say that the text has some wording that is not coherent. I just don’t want to keep repeating my points. I think they are very objective.

 

You said it, and this is the wrong part: “chosen”. By the cochairs, with mistakes that make it non-functional, which changes that should not be done at this time in the process. Without giving the other proposals the same opportunity to change things. May be then we could have chosen a different one?

 

The PDP is not about choosing, is about reaching consensus.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 28/9/20 13:26, "Gaby Giner" <gabyginernetwork at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Hi Jordi,

 

I think that we need to funnel our discussion to the relevant subject for this proposal. The region NEEDS an inter RIR transfer policy, and since one has already been chosen, we need to support it and not distract it with policies that could be better off being a separate policy.

 

As far as I know, AFRINIC is a registration entity. That's it. What members/clients do with the resources is not AFRINIC's business, and neither is how members route them. As Lamiaa has pointed out, once a member terminates their contract and changed their registration, it is out of the area of responsibility of AFRINIC how they route/do with their resources anymore. I don't think it's fair to burden AFRINIC with these "difficulties" since it's not in the job description anymore.


Thanks, Gaby

 

 

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 7:01 PM Lamiaa Chnayti <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Jordi,

The salient point here is that AFRINIC only manages registration, not routing. We can make policies about registration of space, but not routing of the space. 

If their upstream decides to route a space that wasn't registered to them, it is entirely in their upstream's right to do so. If the operator chooses to route space that doesn't belong to them and their upstream is okay with it, it is entirely out of the AFRINIC community's scope - just like any hijacking is out of the scope for the AFRINIC community (the same reason many have told you that the hijacking as policy violation is out of scope). 


>From AFRINIC's point of view, they have terminated the contract; they have changed the registration. What happens at the routing table isn't really AFRINIC's business nor their concern anymore. 


They do not need to get anything back; those spaces can be allocated to a different member. It is entirely up to the one holding the space to have other operators recognize it. Please do remember, AFRINIC is wholly based on the voluntary cooperation of operators; if someone does not recognize AFRINIC's database as the "right" registration database and then start one of their own, they can definitely do it as it is entirely within their rights to do so. So the difficulty you were talking about is really out of the scope of AFRINIC.

 

Regards,

 

Lamiaa

 

Le lun. 28 sept. 2020 à 10:03, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> a écrit :

Hi Ekaterina,

 

The termination of the contract is easy, but what happens if the operator keeps using those resources? How you enforce it to stop? What happens if the case is brought to the courts by any of the parties? How much time it takes? Meanwhile AFRINIC doesn’t get the resources back, so it is not able to redistribute them. This is not fantasy: we have a real case for millions of IP addresses right now in AFRINIC!

 

How much is the cost in terms of lawyers and wait time? Who is using meanwhile the resources? The bad guys.

 

*Partially* that may be resolved if we have the AS0 proposal, but even in that case, that only works for the operators using the AS0 TAL!

 

Even if the resources are recovered, do you understand that AFRINIC procedure is to quarantine them for 12 months before coming back to the pool?

 

So, what is the gain vs having 12 months hold time? Easy, with the 12 months hold time the cost is much lower. I’m not talking only about money cost for AFRINIC in case of disputes, human resources to tackle them, etc., but also the cost of not being able to use those resources during the recovery time + the quarantine period.

 

Again, that will be resolved, allowing to reduce the quarantine period, if we have the “policy compliance dashboard”.

 

A /22 can be obtained in AFRINIC just with a cost of 2.900 USD (justifying an end-site, for example). You can easily sell this for 10 times more! So, it is a very small investment for a huge margin. Just think if you can repeat that every year, or actually many times per year, just creating a company for “only that”. How much it cost in the cheaper country in AFRICA to create a company? You don’t need offices, or anything like that, you can make a “fake” DC in your home.

 

I don’t think it is a matter of the most “flexible and open” proposal. It is about that one that *really works* and is *safer*. If you followed the discussion on the first proposal (the one that I’ve presented in 2018, with two approaches and several versions), across that discussion *the community* asked me to have a “security seat belt”, so if something goes wrong, it can be put in hold. I said it was not needed, but the community insisted, so I did. Now the community don’t want that. This only shows that the problem in developing policies, is that depending “who” is speaking, the authors get crazy at every version. However, if the chairs really consider only what are valid-objections this will not be an issue. But the problem is that consensus is being decided even considering invalid and refuted objections.

 

May be some folks now understand better that when you do policy proposals, you need to look *at a very broad context* and not only in that specific RIR!

 

It is impossible for an author to explain *all this* in each policy proposal. It is impossible for an author to explain all this in a *8 minutes* presentation. There are *many* other aspects that you can’t realize if you’re not operating networks and participating in all the RIRs. Internet is global and you really need to consider everything. A specific region business and cultural details, are very important for the policy making process, but not forgetting the others!

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 25/9/20 19:58, "Ekaterina Kalugina" <kay.k.prof at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Dear Jordi, dear all,

 

Jordi, could you please elaborate a bit more on your statement: "the cost of “not-being-able to use those resources” for any number of providers is actually *lower* than the cost of a single recovery case!" 

As far as I understood, the recovery is  be achieved though the termination of the contract. So what exactly is included in the  recovery costs? 

 

In regard to your argument on the history of fraud in all the RIRs, I do not believe it is very relevant to the current discussion for a simple reason that the maximum allocation space is currently /22. Proving the need that is required for the allocation would cost thousands of dollars, so there is simply no incentive for businesses to commit such fraud. It would cost them way too 

much and bring way to little. 

 

In addition, I believe that our focus should be on passing the most flexible and open transfer  policy to incentivise the free flow of resources in and out of the region that is necessary for a steady economic development. 

 

If there are so many concerns concerning potential resource abuse and fraud, perhaps a separate policy on fraud prevention ought to be introduced. Let us not try to kill all the possible birds with one stone and instead focus on solving one problem per policy. In my view, this is they only way to ameliorate the duties of AFRINIC staff and ensure the proper practical application of each policy. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Kay 

 

 

 

 

On Thu, 24 Sep 2020, 13:14 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:

Hi Ekaterina,

 

 

El 24/9/20 12:25, "Ekaterina Kalugina" <kay.k.prof at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Hey everyone,

 

@JORDI PALET MARTINEZ you said, and I quote:


>"An ISP will not need to return even a /22 because he loses 1.024 customers as he can get them back, this is very common customer churn in a matter of weeks (even days or hours for big ISPs)."


In this case, ISP would not need to bother with resource transfer.

 

[Jordi] At the beginning of the transfers in other regions, I was *against* that. In my opinion when operators don’t need the resources, they should return them back to the RIR. BUT we all know, that people is not so honest, and this will only happen in an utopic and idealistic world and moreover, this will still need some “agreement” between different RIRs to allow those resources that are returned to be “transferred” among RIRs. Due to facts, afterwards I realized that this is a need for the global community and that’s why I agreed with those policies, and even started to work on them as an author. 



However, I believe a situation may occur when the ISP is unable to distribute the allocated resources for whatever reason. Even if we cannot predict the reason we must still account for such contingency. And, in such case, it does not make sense to block these resources for 12 months from being transferred to a place where they are actually needed. This would be detrimental to everyone involved. 

[Jordi] I don’t agree. A transfer may take several weeks or even months. It depends on many factors, like the justification time among the RIRs, providing documents, etc. Even if you discover that in month 3 after you have received a /22, you no longer need it (which I doubt it can be true), this means that the resources will be “unused” during other 6-7 months. I could agree that the hold time is just 6-8 months instead of 12, but non zero is difficult, because the cost of “not-being-able to use those resources” for any number of providers is actually *lower* than the cost of a single recovery case!


In regard to your statement:
"However, a “bad guy” will easily use that as an excuse to transfer the resources in days or weeks."
Like Anthony and Lucilla mentioned before, such action would be a clear act of fraud.I do not see any reason why anyone would willingly commit such a violation. "Bad guys" are not stupid, and if someone wants to take an advantage of AFRINIC, they will, and I do not think the 12 months cap would prevent that in any way. 

[Jordi] Just look at the histories of frauds in all the RIRs! This is real life. Holding the resources for 12 months, breaks their business model. It makes sense because it is quick money and you can do it with a very tiny fraction of money, once and again and again, rotating among different RIRs, etc.


The only thing it would achieve, in my view, is slow down the flow of resources and create stagnations that could be more costly than any retrieval procedures in case of fraud.

[Jordi] To be objective, we will need to get statistics of “speed” of transfers among different RIRs, number of frauds or fraud attempts, etc., etc., etc. and many of those details probably are sensitive and the RIRs will not recognize that, even if anonymized. There have been fraud cases in RIPE, which everybody knows by word of mouth, but it has never published …


But of course, staff assessment is needed to have full clarity of this issue.

 

Best,

 

Kay

 

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:05 AM Gaby Giner <gabyginernetwork at gmail.com> wrote:

 

Hello guys,

 

This discussion is very interesting seeing that it deals with the most probable or likely outcome with those that would want to take advantage of the system. We can only wish that the clients would be completely honest with their need, but of course, if they are inclined to lie, there is no mechanism that would stop them from doing so. I would suggest that the proposal include a means or a way to authenticate the need but that would be more trouble than it is worth and would not be entirely foolproof. 

 

Since we are dealing with finite and scarce resources, it's important that the way they are doled out should be systematic and measured and not just "I need this. I need this, give me this". Having said that, I think having a time limit would also cause traffic for the "need". Regardless, as Lucilla said, these are hypothetical scenarios and questions but they may be worth getting into.

 

I'm interested in what the staff/authors would have to say on this matter.

 

Thanks, Gaby.

 

 

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 2:59 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

I mean a non-realistic situation. An ISP will not need to return even a /22 because he loses 1.024 customers as he can get them back, this is very common customer churn in a matter of weeks (even days or hours for big ISPs).

 

However, a “bad guy” will easily use that as an excuse to transfer the resources in days or weeks.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 24/9/20 8:29, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:

 

Exactly, if you really have that situation you can return them and be fair.

 

Anyway, the example that I’ve presented is a non-realistic suggestion. It is not frequent that an operator loses customers in such way. It is just the perfect excuse for “bad guys” to get resources and resell them.

 

Remember also that in the actual exhaustion phase, they can only get a maximum of a /22.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 24/9/20 4:03, "Fernando Frediani" <fhfrediani at gmail.com> escribió:

 

We can make in another way: if someone justifies and receives resources from AfriNic but afterwards realizes something changed and doesn't need those addresses anymore it must give the addresses back to AfriNic so it can re-distribute it in the most fair way to any other organization who goes though the same justification process. Why is it difficult to think about this fairness with all others in the region ?

Fernando

On 23/09/2020 22:22, lucilla fornaro wrote:

Hello everyone,

 

I agree with what concerns the problem of the time limit. Companies will refrain from such behavior because it is too risky and indicative of possible fraud.

 

Jordi, Considering your example related to the customers' loss, I think that it is adverse for the operator to wait 12 months before transferring the addresses. What is the point in holding addresses that they will not be able to use and deprive someone else of further resources? What if they don’t get new customers? What if they lose even more customers? Too many hypothetical questions, that is why I believe it is more straightforward and more convenient for everyone to facilitate the process.

 

I agree that recovery processes are expensive and time-consuming, but we can say the same for those unused resources.

 

As well as you, I would like to know the staff’s view on this.

 

Regards,

 

Lucilla 

 

Il giorno mer 23 set 2020 alle ore 21:14 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> ha scritto:

Hi Anthony,

 

I think *somehow* you’re right, clearly I overlooked this.

 

We don’t need a time limit to transfer resrources because that will be a demonstration of the “the need was not justified”.

 

However, the problem of this approach is that if it happens, the staff *will need to start a recovery process* which is long, costly and a big trouble.

 

What happens if the *false* justification for the transfer is: I had the need 6 months ago, but then I lost customers and now I don’t need anymore the space, so I’m transfering it.

 

What happens if the same operator, repeat that after another 6 months? There are ways to one and again *justify the need* and it is, instead, very dificult for the staff to act on the RSA for recovery and member closure in those cases.

 

On the other way around, what is the “objection” if we have that hold time? I can only see one: If the example above (I lost customers) happens, the operator need to wait until month 12 before transfering the addresses. Is that really so bad? Or it is good because he may get new customers again?

 

I think the trade-off is to have a good balance and ensure that we avoid this happening and requiring the staff to invest resources in an investigation and recovery.

 

Could the staff provide a view on this?

 

Regarding the legacy. Yes, ARIN and RIPE don’t have it (I think APNIC has it, LACNIC definitively has it). AFRINIC has it right now. We are removing a very good thing.

 

Why it is so good? Because legacy holders aren’t bound to the RIRs RSAs, so that’s extremely bad for the overall community. They don’t pay for *services* that all the RIRs are doing for them, so all the members are covering that part of the cost. They’re not bound to RIR policies, so they can break the rules of the community all the time and we have no way to react on that.

 

I don’t agree on the point of the disputed resources, I’ve the feeling that somehow in the process of editing the v2, it was removed by mistake and we should have it back. The difference in between rightful holder and having a dispute, is depending on who is saying that, in case of a dispute. I will love also to have the staff opinion on that.

 

As well, can the impact analysis be made clear? Is that all fine for the staff after having checked with authors each point?

 

Please, let’s make this happen!

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 21/9/20 18:10, "Anthony Ubah" <ubah.tonyiyke at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Hello Jordi,

We can sight an instance with APNIC as a case study. APNIC has a transfer policy that doesn’t have a time limit for retransferring resources and time proves to us that it works.

According to APNIC, the act of buying space and reselling it right after the purchase seems to be highly unlikely because of two reasons.

First of all, most companies buy space for their own use, and hence a commodity trading type of business doesn’t exist in the IP space involved.

Secondly, since the buyer is required to justify the need of a 12-month usage, if he/she engages in an activity such as buying the space and then reselling it right after, this indicative of fraud because it contravenes the “NEED” which is a prerequisite for receiving such space. This simply implies that the so-called “NEED” which they provided was fake. Hence, companies will refrain from engaging in such behaviour.

As for the legacy transfer, I believe both ARIN and RIPE have the cases of a transferred legacy space remained as a legacy. APNIC may be different, but I think this is just a different sort of opinion and should not be read as an objection. Also, what matters the most is that if we follow ARIN, we can receive space from them. Definitely this is a significant advantage.

As for the disputed resources, since AFRINIC have to know who the rightful holder of the spaces are before transferring them. I don’t think this would be a concern because AFRINIC is not able to initiate a transfer for space that is under dispute. However, this is a legal matter and is already out of the scope of the policy.

Best Regards,

Anthony Ubah

E-mail: anthony.ubah at goldspine.com.ng

 

 

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:00 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. AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT02 - Resource Transfer Policy
      (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
   2. Re: Abuse Contact Policy (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:34:13 +0200
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
To: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: [rpd] AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT02 - Resource Transfer Policy
Message-ID: <8873E491-A0A7-4506-A490-13C6B6E67A7D at consulintel.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi all,



I will be happy to support this proposal and withdraw my own one, but *before* I?ve some questions about this decision that need to be addressed first (see below, in-line).





10.   Resource Transfer Policy

This proposal aims to introduce Inter RIR transfer. However, it has the following opposition 

a.                   Issues with Legacy holder transfer is potentially considered none-reciprocal by ARIN

b.                  Potential abuse of AFRINIC free pool without the time limit of receiving an allocation from AFRINIC.

Chairs Decision: The proposal is the least contested of all the 3 competing proposals. However because of the community?s desire and clear expression for the  need for an Inter RIR transfer, we, the Co-chairs, believe that in the interest of the community we should focus on a proposal rather than several similar ones. This desire was clearly expressed at the AFRINIC 31 meeting in Angola. Therefore, We suggest that the authors of this proposal make the following amendments: 

?         5.7.3.2  Source entities are not eligible to receive further IPv4 allocations or assignments from AFRINIC for 12 months period after the transfer.



[Jordi] This is perfect, and in fact is what I?ve. Just different timing to match phase 2 window x 2, but not a big issue. However, we are missing something that was also objected by the community and I think is key to avoid abuse. Actual text in the CPM ?5.7.3.3 Source entities must not have received a transfer, allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from AFRINIC for the 12 months prior to the approval of transfer request. This restriction excludes mergers and acquisitions transfers.?. This is no longer considered by this proposal, and in my opinion it is a MUST. Doesn?t make any sense that someone is getting resources from AFRINIC and being able to transfer them immediately! Can please the chairs also address this point.

[Jordi] Can the staff explain the consequences from their perspective if we don?t have such text or something similar? Is even possible that the board will not ratify the policy because that, and we are wasting a previous time?



?         5.7.4.3. Transferred legacy resources will still be regarded as legacy resources.

[Jordi] This is also a major issue. I?m not sure if the chairs have understood what was the point about lack of reciprocity. We can?t enforce ARIN to accept that outgoing (to ARIN from AFRINIC) resources will no longer be legacy. However the actual CPM states ?5.7.4.3 Transferred IPv4 legacy resources will no longer be regarded as legacy resources.?. We must keep that, because we should avoid legacy resources to keep being legacy as much as possible, because they are NOT BIND to the CPM. If we accept the chairs proposal, we are going *backwards* not forward and we may be creating a discrimination with already done transfers within AFRINIC (Intra-RIR, according to the current policy). The right text here must be ?Transferred incoming or within AFRINIC IPv4 legacy resources will no longer be regarded as legacy resources?.



[Jordi] Finally, there were several severe comments from the staff that need to be addressed. For example, resources under dispute. That?s a big issue! There are a few others. I think here we need to see if the staff got everything clear from the authors inputs and if the policy can be implemented or there will be open questions that will not allow to be a functional policy and again, even disallow the board to ratify it.



Chairs Decision: Provided that the above are amended, the decisions is Rough Consensus is achieved             







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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200921/81bf3b81/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:00:01 +0200
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
To: <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Abuse Contact Policy
Message-ID: <491C1297-8C2D-4939-B339-EDAA80334B24 at consulintel.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Lamiaa,



8.3 and 8.4 are making sure that you respond to an abuse case, *not* that you *recognize* it as an abuse. It is your choice to tell the ?victim ISP?, look for me this is not an abuse, so I will not do anything about it.



AFRINIC can?t verify this automatically, because it doesn?t make sense that AFRINIC is ?sending? fake abuse reports to see if they get a response.



AFRINIC can only send an email for the validation of the mailbox. It is an existing mailbox? I?m getting a response (for example, have they, once I send the validation email, clicked the link or went into MyAfrinic to input the validation code?).



8.4 also states the timing for the validation.



8.5 is the validation itself, so I guess, according to your response, that you?re ok with this specific point. If we don?t have it, AFRINIC can?t do a periodic validation.



8.6. is making sure that you don?t try to fake the validation. For instance, you could respond only to AFRINIC validations and then discard all the other emails. If we don?t have that, the policy may become useless. Note also that in fact, if you follow the RSA, *anyone* could escalate *any* lack of CPM compliance. So this is making sure that the policy text is honest and transparent.



Or do you prefer to be filtered because you don?t respond?



Clearly this proposal is not asking AFRINIC to be a police. Is only making sure that the parties *can talk*. Again: AFRINIC will not be involved in ?how you handle the case?, but I least you should be able to be contacted and respond.



See this example:

If AK or Moses customers are sending me spam, or trying to intrude my network, and they have abuse contacts, I will be able to complain to them. Then we have two cases:

1.   Moses responds to me and say ?you?re right, this is against our AUP? (is irrelevant what the law in Moses country say, it is the contract with customers what says what is allowed or not). Let?s fix it. I will warn the customer, and if they don?t stop, we will filter their email port, or even cancel the contract (just examples, only Moses can decide what they do).

2.   AK instead doesn?t care, or the mailbox is full or bouncing emails or respond ?sorry in our network we allow that?. Then I can take my own decision, filter only that IP address, or the complete AK network. I can even see if this is allowed in his country and take legal actions (which usually you don?t do because is costly and more of the regulations don?t know ?anything? about abuse or even Internet!).

AFRINIC will not take any measure if AK decides that is not an abuse. It is our problem not AFRINIC problem. However, if the email is bouncing, AFRINIC will revalidate the abuse-c and make sure that it works.



Is like a phone book. You have there the phones and they must be correct, or you need to update them every ?n? months. The phone book doesn?t tell the purpose of each phone. If you don?t want to accept calls related to ?ordering pizzas?, you tell the caller ?this number is not for that?, but at least you must pick up the phone otherwise, you don?t know if it is somebody calling by error or someone that you really want to talk. And this is true for *every* whois contact.







Can you let us know how do you handle it in the networks that you operate?



Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet







El 21/9/20 10:00, "Lamiaa Chnayti" <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com> escribi?:



Hi Fernando, 



I think you are very confused. I never said I have a problem with people completing their registration. Keep registration---having an abuse contact Email in the whois, just like tech contact or admin contact--I am perfectly fine with it, and I think the current policy achieves 99% it, if you want to add this contact as mandatory field I am fine with it as well.



 But the problem of this policy in 8.3-8.6, is that it requires AFRINIC to monitor the members HOW to manage their abuse mailbox down to the subject line,  and that is out of the scope of AFRINIC, just read my last email with logic in mind and you will understand. I suggest this policy should be very simple,  adding one line to the current policy-- abuse contact is mandatory, and it's done, everything else should be deleted.



And again, you are trying to use AFRINIC for something that is not in its scope, how someone manages their mailbox is not in the scope of AFRINIC, it is like you go to your local church to ask them to arrest your neighbour who plays loud music at night when you should go to police instead. Same thing for someone running an abusive network, as many already stated, it is up to a local Jury to decide if it is simply at an annoying level or a criminal offense, but either way please do go to your local police to report it.



As for the internet, we never tell you how to behave--you are entirely at your rights in the internet to behave abusively, but it is also entirely in everyone's rights to block you, that's how de-centralizing works, no central governing, everyone plays nice because that's the only way for everyone else to play with you, and this policy here asks AFRINIC to act like a central government even down to manage people's mailbox's subject line and that is way beyond what internet meant to be.



Regards,



Lamiaa



Le dim. 20 sept. 2020 ? 23:42, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> a ?crit :










On 19/09/2020 13:19, Lamiaa Chnayti wrote:























<clip>









































How is it in the scope of AFRINIC to decide how I manage my abuse mailbox? If I want to reply only to a specific subject line of my abuse box, it is entirely in my right to do. Even if I don't want to reply at the abuse mailbox at all, that is my right to do so and if I think no action in my network would be considered abuse (although unlikely), but it is still from  the internet community point of view, entirely in my right to do so. You might choose to block me as a network, but that is also your right. 



The reason internet is called INTER-NET is because of its decentralized nature, you have to play nice for others to play with you, but this community never forces anyone to play nice, it is not in the scope of AFRINIC to decide how members reply to their abuse mailbox, so if 8.3,8.4, 8.5 and 8.6 are deleted in its entirety, I might consider supporting it. Also Jordi, I feel you always have this central management type of thinking, and that is so not internet.























It is not in the scope of any RIR how anyone manage people's

mailboxes.


Nobody exists alone in the Internet. If an organization

hypothetically doesn't care at all and refuses to respond to abuse

emails it probably should re-think its existence in the Internet

business.



The Internet is what is among many reasons because of the

cooperation among its organizations, and there are certain rules

that are agreed cooperatively and must be observed by everyone

willing remain on it, otherwise it may in many cases cause serious

damage to those willing to operate in serious manner and keep it a

healthy place to most people who depend on it.




This forum is about setting rules on how registration information

about resources are kept and it may be of the wish of the

community to refuse keep registration for those who repetitively

abuse of their individual rights.



Fernando

























Regards,





Lamiaa






















Le ven. 18 sept. 2020 ? 09:23,

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> a ?crit :










Hi Lamiaa,







I don?t agree. Internet doesn't depend on

any jurisdiction; abuse is about what I (the victim

operator) consider abuse. The RFC is clear about that,

in short ?Inappropriate public behaviour? (is a

mailbox so to be able to contact in case there is a

possible inappropriate behaviour in the public

Internet). If you want a clearer definition, abuse is

*anything* that I don?t want to accept in my

network because is in any way damaging it.







If I don?t want to accept a DoS, or spam,

or phising, DMCA, or whatever, this is abuse *for

me*. I?ve the right to tell you because that

abuse is coming from your network. If you believe that

is not abuse (and here is your jurisdiction in some

cases, in other just doesn?t exist, but it may be also

your ?business? decision ? like operators that don?t

care if their customers do spam or intrusion

attempts), you?ve the right to tell me ?sorry, this is

not abuse for us?, and then I?ve the right to decide

if I should filter your network based on your

response.







Not having an abuse contact, means that

I?m not able to contact you, so we can?t talk, we

can?t investigate or agree if it is an abuse or not,

so you (the offender operator) don?t have the chance

to decide about it! Is bad for you, is bad for me. In

those cases, my best choice is to filter you. This

create problems for your customers and my customers.







We can?t depend on jurisdictions, because

then the policy will need to consider inter-relations

among every possible ?pairs? of country worlds, and we

will need to update the policy based on any

jurisdiction change. The policy is not about that, is

about having a valid responsible contact, not about

deciding what is an abuse, which is among the two

parties.







Tell me what is different from AFRINIC

than the rest of the world, because none of the RIRs

have defined abuse in their policies. I even don?t

recall that having appeared in the discussions!









If

you want, I?m happy to change the title of the

proposal to ?supposed abuse contact?, that may be

clearing your point?







Again,

this is not about defining what is abuse, this is

among the parties. It is about making sure that

there is a valid responsible contact in case of

anyone needs to report what he considers an abuse.

AFRINIC will not punish anyone that believes that

his customer is not doing an abuse because in his

country is not an abuse.







Regards,



Jordi



@jordipalet





















El

18/9/20 9:59, "Lamiaa Chnayti" <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com>

escribi?:



















Hello

Jordi,















RFC2142

only defines a tiny portion of the network abuse. In

real world operation, abuse consists of a  much

boarder range : DMCA(copy rights) claims,

unsolicited emails , phishing  websites , trade mark

disputes etc. 















All

those are legal issues that vary vastly across

different juridictions in which no one but each of

the juridiction?s judges can decide if it is an

abuse or an illegal activity. Claiming that RFC2142

defines not even 1% of real world abuse is

laughable.















Regards,















Lamiaa















Le jeu.

17 sept. 2020 ? 15:51, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via

RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

a ?crit :











Hi

Lamiaa,







I?ve

said this already. This policy doesn?t

enforce abuse, it enforces that the abuse

contact is there, and works.







Today

AFRINIC is paying for the cost of the

abuse handling because only a tiny

fraction of the members has the abuse

contacts in place.







If

the contacts in the RIR database aren?t

actual and accurate, this is a clear

violation of the RSA. So what is

unacceptable is not having the contacts,

not on the other way around.







Abuse

is not defined by the RIRs, everybody

knows it and this is the reason why NONE

of the RIRs have re-defined it, because it

is already stated in RFC2142. Can you

justify why AFRINIC is different and need

a definition?







How

you define it in the networks that you

operate?









Regards,



Jordi



@jordipalet





















El 17/9/20

10:49, "Lamiaa Chnayti" <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com>

escribi?:





























Hello,







I

will have to agree with Lucilla on what

she said and would like to add to it

that :



Firstly, Abuse

enforcement is out of scope for RIRs.



Secondly, RIRs

have no ability to define what is

?abuse?, one abuse or even criminal

activity could be entirely a legal

operation in a different jurisdiction.



Finally, making

a member forcefully reply to abuse

contact Emails are a waste of resources

and totally pointless, it is entirely up

to the member to define what they think

is acceptable in their network operation

and how they react to it. AFRINIC has no

mandate to force any member to reply to

an ?abuse?, since AFRINIC doesn?t even

have the ability to identify what is

considered an abuse.



Therefore the

entire policy is out of scope for the

RIR operation.







Regards,







Lamiaa











































Le jeu. 17

sept. 2020 ? 07:42, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

a ?crit :











Hi Lucilla,







Today we already have

mnt-IRT, and everybody who operate

networks understand what it is an

abuse. If you operate networks you

know that *anything* which

is a non-authorized use of a

network is an abuse.







If you send spam,

attack networks, try to intrude

networks, etc., all those are

abuse.







What the policy ask

is to make sure that in AFRINIC

everybody has an abuse contact

(today we have mnt-IRT, but is not

mandatory, and as a results many

African networks are filtered

because lack of that ? and

consequently they do not respond

to abuse cases -, which exist in

all the other regions of the

world).









Not having an abuse

means more chances of legal

actions, more cost, for both the

victims and the ISPs. Having

that means that you have more

chances to resolve it in

goodfaith.







One of the *most

important* Afrinic

missions is to have accuracy on

the database, which includes

accuracy on the contacts. We are

not fulfilling that in this

situation.







Remember that *all*

the other RIRs have already this

kind of policy. This one is like

the one that has been

implemented in APNIC, and the

accuracy of the contacts is now

87.5% as reported this month in

the last APNIC meeting. In that

report *none* of the

members indicated any of the

issues that you indicated

(didn't happened as well in the

other regions).







You know who is

interested in not having abuse

contacts? Those that use their

networks for doing abuse

(hijacking, spam, DoS,

intrusions, etc.).







Can you explain if

the network that you operate has

an abuse contact an how if one

of your customes is trying to

penetrate my network or do a

DoS, I will be able to contact

you and if you will do anything

or just ignore it?







Regards,



Jordi



@jordipalet





















El

17/9/20 2:21, "lucilla fornaro"

<lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com>

escribi?:





















Dear

all,















I

have some concerns about the

?Abuse Contact Policy?.







First

of all, it does not offer a

specific and regulated

description of the term

?abuse?  and this opens the

door to potentially bigger

problems: a surplus of

reports, discrimination/legal

issues, and a waste of

resources. Around the world,

we can perceive what abuse is

in very different ways.















Afrinic

is not entitled to force

members to report abuses and

most importantly, this

proposal does not represent

Afrinic?s purpose.















I,

therefore, oppose this policy.























Thank

you,















Lucilla 









_______________________________________________

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.





_______________________________________________


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.















_______________________________________________





RPD mailing list





RPD at afrinic.net





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

























Le jeu.

17 sept. 2020 ? 15:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via

RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

a ?crit :











Hi

Lamiaa,







I?ve

said this already. This policy doesn?t

enforce abuse, it enforces that the abuse

contact is there, and works.







Today

AFRINIC is paying for the cost of the abuse

handling because only a tiny fraction of the

members has the abuse contacts in place.







If the

contacts in the RIR database aren?t actual

and accurate, this is a clear violation of

the RSA. So what is unacceptable is not

having the contacts, not on the other way

around.







Abuse is

not defined by the RIRs, everybody knows it

and this is the reason why NONE of the RIRs

have re-defined it, because it is already

stated in RFC2142. Can you justify why

AFRINIC is different and need a definition?







How you

define it in the networks that you operate?









Regards,



Jordi



@jordipalet





















El 17/9/20

10:49, "Lamiaa Chnayti" <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com>

escribi?:





























Hello,







I

will have to agree with Lucilla on what

she said and would like to add to it that


:




Firstly, Abuse

enforcement is out of scope for RIRs.



Secondly, RIRs

have no ability to define what is ?abuse?,

one abuse or even criminal activity could

be entirely a legal operation in a

different jurisdiction.



Finally, making

a member forcefully reply to abuse contact

Emails are a waste of resources and

totally pointless, it is entirely up to

the member to define what they think is

acceptable in their network operation and

how they react to it. AFRINIC has no

mandate to force any member to reply to an

?abuse?, since AFRINIC doesn?t even have

the ability to identify what is considered

an abuse.



Therefore the

entire policy is out of scope for the RIR

operation.







Regards,







Lamiaa











































Le jeu. 17

sept. 2020 ? 07:42, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

a ?crit :











Hi

Lucilla,







Today

we already have mnt-IRT, and

everybody who operate networks

understand what it is an abuse. If

you operate networks you know that *anything*

which is a non-authorized use of a

network is an abuse.







If

you send spam, attack networks, try

to intrude networks, etc., all those

are abuse.







What

the policy ask is to make sure that

in AFRINIC everybody has an abuse

contact (today we have mnt-IRT, but

is not mandatory, and as a results

many African networks are filtered

because lack of that ? and

consequently they do not respond to

abuse cases -, which exist in all

the other regions of the world).









Not having an abuse

means more chances of legal

actions, more cost, for both the

victims and the ISPs. Having that

means that you have more chances

to resolve it in goodfaith.







One of the *most

important* Afrinic missions

is to have accuracy on the

database, which includes accuracy

on the contacts. We are not

fulfilling that in this situation.







Remember that *all*

the other RIRs have already this

kind of policy. This one is like

the one that has been implemented

in APNIC, and the accuracy of the

contacts is now 87.5% as reported

this month in the last APNIC

meeting. In that report *none*

of the members indicated any of

the issues that you indicated

(didn't happened as well in the

other regions).







You know who is

interested in not having abuse

contacts? Those that use their

networks for doing abuse

(hijacking, spam, DoS, intrusions,

etc.).







Can you explain if

the network that you operate has

an abuse contact an how if one of

your customes is trying to

penetrate my network or do a DoS,

I will be able to contact you and

if you will do anything or just

ignore it?







Regards,



Jordi



@jordipalet





















El

17/9/20 2:21, "lucilla fornaro"

<lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com>

escribi?:





















Dear

all,















I

have some concerns about the

?Abuse Contact Policy?.







First

of all, it does not offer a

specific and regulated

description of the term ?abuse?

 and this opens the door to

potentially bigger problems: a

surplus of reports,

discrimination/legal issues, and

a waste of resources. Around the

world, we can perceive what

abuse is in very different ways.















Afrinic

is not entitled to force members

to report abuses and most

importantly, this proposal does

not represent Afrinic?s purpose.















I,

therefore, oppose this policy.























Thank

you,















Lucilla 









_______________________________________________

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.





_______________________________________________


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.
























_______________________________________________





RPD mailing list





RPD at afrinic.net





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









-- 

















Lamiaa

CHNAYTI






























**********************************************


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










_______________________________________________

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

-- 

Lamiaa CHNAYTI



_______________________________________________ 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200921/38d79b2f/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 143
*************************************


**********************************************
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

 
_______________________________________________
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 


**********************************************
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.

_______________________________________________
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


**********************************************
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.


**********************************************
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

_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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 



**********************************************
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200929/1aab6fdd/attachment-0001.html>