Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Last Call - RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT03.
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Tue Jun 15 18:06:46 UTC 2021
Hi, could please stop trying to fish minor reasons to stop this policy
which already reached consensus ?
Throughout the entire discussion which has happened for almost 18 months
I don't remember of a single person complaining about the problem
statement as a reason to oppose this proposal. Then one person who
supports it says that in *his vision* some information lacked then that
becomes a reason to discard a proposal which already reached consensus ?
Furthermore understanding of problem statement is subjective. Some
people may have difficulty some not, based on their technical
understanding. And above all problem statement alone is not a reason to
invalid a proposal. I personally understood the problem well and
benefited from the discussion to getter a better understanding with the
help of the technical understand about the subject.
If there were critical issues in there that would have been pointed
throughout the discussion and it wasn't.
Let's just be more rational and also discuss things within the
On 15/06/2021 14:03, Daniel Yakmut via RPD wrote:
> If I will add, if the problem wasn't well stated or defined, could it
> also mean that there was no problem in the first instance?
> Then we can possibly say that the policy is a non issue and should be
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021, 4:59 PM Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com
> <mailto:pascosoft at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hello, Find my comments inline.
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz
> <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> wrote:
> Hi Job,
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 2:12 PM Job Snijders <job at fastly.com
> <mailto:job at fastly.com>> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 09:01:03PM +0300, Noah wrote:
> > While this was resolved within 10mins, were there
> measures put in place by
> > the NCC as mitigation process to curb a repeat of the
> This problem lasted more than 70 minutes!
> The point I am trying to make: once an RIR automatically
> creates AS0
> ROAs for unallocated/unassigned space, any database
> incidents where the
> registration status of a resource accidentally (and
> temporarily) lapses,
> can result in blocklisting via AS0.
> The risk of things going wrong at a future point in time
> versus the
> perceived benefits of such ROAs don't align well.
> The best measure to put in place to curb incidents is to
> not implement
> this type of policy.
> There are several of us who support this policy for valid
> reasons, some of which are founded on the premise  that you
> shared with the APNIC region back in 2019.
> And if you look at the bogons  currently seen in the global
> routing table, one can easily find the prefixes from
> AFRINIC pool, some being advertised by unassigned ASNs.
>  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA
> It isunfortunate that the problem statement of the proposal is
> not well defined to allow a better understanding of the
> problem being addressed andthe assessment of the benefits vs
> Well if the problem statement of the proposal is not Well defined
> as you said, then the proposal is not well drafted and that's a
> problem. In research if your problem statement is not well defined
> your research justification is also not tenable.
> Yes.....Thingscan go wrong at many layers and at different
> levels, however, the entitled parties shall play their roleand
> we all learn from incidents and keep improving.
> Well there are some lessons you don't wonna experience or learn
> from you might come out too charred to survive.
> The issuance of AS0 ROAs should follow the conservative
> approach RIRs use in managing changes in number ressources
> status, the addition of INRs to bogon list, subject to AS0 ROAs.
> In my humble opinion.
> Kind regards,
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD