[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Unaddressed queries by AFRINIC during AGMM

[Wijdane Goubi]

Hello,
To begin with, the CPM is open to interpretation because it does not
specifically indicate what is and is not permitted. As a result, let us
stop treating certain people's ideas as facts and others' failure to
comprehend the CPM.
Furthermore, aside from the fact that IP Leasing will be a more
cost-effective option for organizations and businesses that require IPv4
immediately, there is an obvious reason for supporting IP Leasing, which is
that purchasing an IPv4 is becoming more expensive, which may not be the
best option for small businesses due to the cost of purchasing an IPv4.
Large organizations, on the other hand, may find the cost of purchasing
IPv4 to be reasonable, but leasing will remain an additional option for
them, allowing them to be more flexible in their operations.
To summarize, everyone of us may handle things differently, but at the end
of the day, we are still members who want the best for this community.
Regards,
Wijdane

Le sam. 3 juil. 2021 à 16:15, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> a
écrit :


> Not trying to impose anything but trying to explain why this is something

> fundamentally wrong and why IP Leasing is not a valid justification for a

> resourse holder to keep their IP space. Me and other people already

> explained why IP Leasing is wrong but it seems you don't wish to accept it.

> Bottom line is that if that is the staff understanding there is nothing you

> or other members that have interest in leasing can do other than try to

> adjust the rules using the current rules to allow that which would be

> something really difficult to happen.

>

> It is interesting that some same people who engaged in the last tentative

> of Transfer Policy Discussion that would allow legacy resource holders to

> retain their legacy status are now defending that IP Leasing it something

> normal and acceptable. What a coincidence !

>

> Regards

> Fernando

> On 03/07/2021 01:22, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:

>

> Hello Fernando

>

> I don’t think you’re addressing my questions, rather, you have your set of

> belief (and we do have our way of thinking, which is fine, but we shouldn’t

> try to impose our thoughts on others when your say is a “point of view”

> rather than “a fact”) that IP leasing is wrong while overlooking that the

> fact that there is never a body that prohibits it. I mean, the CPM doesn’t

> - the law doesn’t - never really does except some sort of people simply “do

> not agree” because they think its “wrong”.

>

> The CPM doesn’t -

> “If you don't see in the CPM and with the different explanations that have

> been given here in the discussion I am sorry you failed to understand

> (maybe because you or other do not wish to understand it). Perhaps you are

> expecting some specific set of words in the CPM that are not there, but the

> important part is staff to interpret that IP Leasing means the current

> resource holder is using the addresses in a different way from what they

> have been justified initially and resources may be subject to revocation. “

> - if the CPM really does, then it shouldn’t be an “interpretation” or

> “explanation” but rather a clear and precise definition that “IP leasing”

> is not allowed. In fact what is the actual case is that the CPM, when it’s

> written, never take into account the situation of IP leasing. It’s just

> like people are trying to use Victorian laws to interpret modern matters,

> when the Victorians don’t even have that thing in mind. If I follow your

> logic, that we keep “interpretating” the CPM, then I’m sure 100 people will

> have 100 ways of interpretation. What is at stake here is that we don’t try

> to label opinions as facts.

>

> Additionally, it’s been quite obvious that a number of “senior” community

> members have the tendency to think what they say is right,  but that’s

> really not the case. The purpose of this community is to give people the

> ability to express their various opinions and not to dictate or impose

> their opinions as “right” on others.

>

> Elvis

>

> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:30 Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

> wrote:

>

>> Some people seem to try to justify that IP Leasing as something normal

>> "because they need or depend on that" or "because it earns money leasing

>> addresses to other organizations" or "because it is a functional way to

>> bypass the current exhaustion phases of some RIRs". None of that is a

>> justification for something that keeps being wrong. It is not because it

>> works well for some that it has to be something acceptable by the current

>> rules. Depending on IP Leasing does not make it right or acceptable in

>> terms of justification.

>>

>> If you don't see in the CPM and with the different explanations that have

>> been given here in the discussion I am sorry you failed to understand

>> (maybe because you or other do not wish to understand it). Perhaps you are

>> expecting some specific set of words in the CPM that are not there, but the

>> important part is staff to interpret that IP Leasing means the current

>> resource holder is using the addresses in a different way from what they

>> have been justified initially and resources may be subject to revocation.

>> Can you justify resources saying you need them because you intend to lease

>> them ? No you can't.

>>

>>

>> Fernando

>> On 02/07/2021 18:49, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:

>>

>> Hello Fernando,

>>

>> In your previous email, you outlined “relying on the WRONG OPTION”.

>> Again, like you’ve been asked, what are you criteria or justification for

>> what constitutes a “wrong option”. Also, I don’t see where the CPM

>> prohibits IP Leasing and based on what you said earlier, what about the

>> consequences of the end user losing connectivity?.

>>

>> Elvis.

>>

>> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 5:28 Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>>> Perhaps you may not be used with the way numbering resources are

>>> allocated and must be used. This is not a simple internal network usage

>>> thing that any company can decide at will.

>>> Anyone holding these resources MUST use them in according to the current

>>> rules and MUST justify and *keep justifying that usage* permanently in

>>> order to be able to keep holding those resources - which by the way is not

>>> something the belongs to the organization.

>>>

>>> Bizarre is to get resources form the RIR, not use them for what they

>>> have been justified originally and bypass that justification giving them to

>>> allow someone to bypass the current rules of a RIR.

>>> If any organization is holding resources which it doesn't justify

>>> anymore it either gives it back to AfriNic or transfer to another

>>> organization who have usage and justify for that.

>>> IP Leasing is a clear way to show the RIR and Community that resource

>>> holder doesn't justify to keep that IP space to anymore.

>>>

>>>

>>> Fernando

>>> On 02/07/2021 15:45, Mimi dy wrote:

>>>

>>> Hi Fernando,

>>>

>>> I am wondering what basis do you use to define “a wrong option”? And who

>>> gave you, or me or the community the right to determine how networks are

>>> used? Does the CPM entitle us the right to tell a certain company; “you

>>> have the option to use Inter RIR transfer policy”? I may have missed that,

>>> but please point out to me where the CPM gives us  the right to intervene

>>> with others and their networks just because we do not like it.

>>> That is just bizarre.

>>>

>>> Best,

>>>

>>> Le ven. 2 juil. 2021 à 18:39, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

>>> a écrit :

>>>

>>>> So they are relying on a wrong option which should never have relied.

>>>> If they have needs for IPv4 (as everybody else) and they cannot get

>>>> these addresses directly from the RIR as per the current rules which apply

>>>> equally to everybody they have the option to use Inter-RIR transfer policy

>>>> available on all other RIRs.

>>>>

>>>> If these organizations are from outside Africa region then it is even

>>>> worst they grab unused addressed that were assigned to a local company to

>>>> use somewhere else out of the region.

>>>>

>>>> Not everything that is useful or convenient to some is correct and as

>>>> such should e stimulated and IP leasing mean the current holder doesn't

>>>> justify for those addresses anymore, so either it gives it back to AfriNic

>>>> or transfer them definitely.

>>>>

>>>> Regards

>>>> Fernando

>>>> On 02/07/2021 14:29, Mimi dy wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Hello Fernando,

>>>>

>>>> Many organizations rely on IP Leasing in order to acquire number

>>>> resources quickly and affordably to meet their current and future needs. It

>>>> is totally legit, especially during the IPv4 exhaustion phase, where

>>>> resource scarcity represents a real issue for ISPs and network-holders in

>>>> AFRINIC's service area.

>>>> I find it absurd that you are arguing against IP leasing when it is a

>>>> legal and accurate way to obtain IPs. Indeed, there are some malicious

>>>> organizations out there misusing leased IPs, but that is certainly not the

>>>> case for everyone, so no need to generalize. Consequently, you cannot

>>>> really dismiss IP leasing using weak arguments as such.

>>>>

>>>> Since IP leasing is very helpful to numerous entities in the period of

>>>> shortage of available IP addresses, and is certainly legal, I fail to

>>>> understand why you are advocating against it.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Best,

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Le ven. 2 juil. 2021 à 16:48, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

>>>> a écrit :

>>>>

>>>>> Well, like it or not but having a customer that is in the leasing

>>>>> business may effectively change our opinion about some subject, even

>>>>> if

>>>>> personally you wish it may not to.

>>>>>

>>>>> Trying to find an exact 'ipsis literis' word in the CPM that fulfill

>>>>> or

>>>>> not your expectations may not always work. There is always room for

>>>>> some

>>>>> interpretation and staff is the one responsible to do that in this

>>>>> context.

>>>>> For the absurd leasing possibility is very simple: if leasing proposes

>>>>> cannot be used as a justification to receive a new block from the RIR

>>>>> why would it be after you receive it and missuse it for different

>>>>> proposes other than bring connectivity to your customers. In that

>>>>> sense

>>>>> I really hope staff stand strong in revoking resources that are being

>>>>> used for leasing proposes, different from what they have been

>>>>> justified

>>>>> originally and if necessary fight in courts of Mauritius to have that

>>>>> decision preserved.

>>>>>

>>>>> For out of the region usage there have been multiple people who showed

>>>>> that is not currently permitted. Maybe you don't agree with that but

>>>>> bottom line is that is what staff has been interpreting from the

>>>>> current

>>>>> rules backed by what some of us  have put here based in previous

>>>>> messages.

>>>>>

>>>>> Want to use AfriNic resources in a different region ? Simply transfer

>>>>> them permanently using the soon-to-come Inter-RIR transfer policy and

>>>>> bound to the rules of the new RIR.

>>>>>

>>>>> Regards

>>>>> Fernando

>>>>>

>>>>> On 02/07/2021 04:46, Owen DeLong via RPD wrote:

>>>>> > Full disclosure: I don’t personally have a dog in this fight. I am

>>>>> personally

>>>>> > agnostic as to whether leasing should or should not be permitted in a

>>>>> > newly developed policy.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > I do have a client that I consult for which is in the leasing

>>>>> business. It is my

>>>>> > opinion that their leasing business is 100% compliant with policy as

>>>>> it is

>>>>> > written and that if the community doesn’t like that fact, the

>>>>> community can

>>>>> > and should certainly amend the policy to rectify the situation.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> On Jun 29, 2021, at 03:08 , Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> Hi,

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> On 29/06/2021 12:01, Owen DeLong via RPD wrote:

>>>>> >>> nectivity customers or use out of the region as something "normal

>>>>> and

>>>>> >>> acceptable".

>>>>> >>>

>>>>> >>> Regardless of who does and does not benefit, the reality is that

>>>>> short

>>>>> >>> of an actual government with the ability to enforce its rules using

>>>>> >>> guns and prisons, people who can make a profit are going to do what

>>>>> >>> they are going to do.

>>>>> >> I need to break this down.

>>>>> >> I'm working in my $dayjob for one of those companies that are after

>>>>> >> $profit. What this company _did_ is subscribe to the methods and

>>>>> rules

>>>>> >> of a Mauritius company called AfriNIC, in order to get Internet

>>>>> >> Numbering Resources. And I think many of the AfriNIC members

>>>>> formally

>>>>> >> subscribed to these rules. (And the rules are subject to change

>>>>> >> according to PDP)

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> These INR are provided to members per need and justification.

>>>>> Relatively

>>>>> >> recently additional rules came into force that limited each

>>>>> allocation

>>>>> >> to maximum /22 - this is how rules can change.

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> INR are delegated to members that need them themselves, and AfriNIC

>>>>> >> calls these members "End-User" members. They are also delegated to

>>>>> >> members that provide internet access to respective customers, and

>>>>> >> AfriNIC calls these members "LIR" members.

>>>>> > You are close, but the term used in the bylaws is “open system

>>>>> protocol

>>>>> > network services”. I am not sure why such awkward and broad language

>>>>> > was chosen, but that’s a much broader definition than “internet

>>>>> access”.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > In the CPM, LIR is defined as “An IR that receives allocations from

>>>>> an RIR and primarily

>>>>> > assigns address space to 'end-users’. LIRs are generally ISPs. Their

>>>>> customers are other

>>>>> > ISPs and possibly end-users. LIRs must be members of AFRINIC.”

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Again, there’s not a single word in that definition that ties it to

>>>>> connectivity

>>>>> > services or internet access.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> I believe in all justifications for IPv4, LIR members

>>>>> request/require

>>>>> >> the addresses to address customers, or servers, or VMs that get

>>>>> >> connectivity services from the LIR member. And there is no problem

>>>>> with

>>>>> >> that. LIR is in the business of making profit, providing

>>>>> connectivity,

>>>>> >> hosting servers, services, needs IPs, gets IPs.

>>>>> > Certainly this is the prevalent model, whether or not it is 100%

>>>>> pervasive

>>>>> > I am not sure.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> There is a big difference to the case where an LIR member

>>>>> >> - has IPv4 address space,

>>>>> >> - is not using it themselves,

>>>>> >> - not for connectivity (or hosting) customers

>>>>> >> and has the IPv4 space used by "customers" that are only getting the

>>>>> >> IPv4 space as a service - sold or leased.

>>>>> > Is there? So long as the customers in question are justifying the

>>>>> space to the

>>>>> > same standards that an end-user applying to the RIR would have to or

>>>>> to the

>>>>> > same standard that would be required if they were also getting

>>>>> connectivity

>>>>> > from the LIR, then what exactly is the difference?

>>>>> >

>>>>> > What if the LIR in question did announce the covering aggregates of

>>>>> space

>>>>> > they leased and provided some minimal connectivity to the customer

>>>>> in question?

>>>>> > Now they meet the definition you’ve provided above, but they’re not

>>>>> actually

>>>>> > moving packets because the more-specific being announced to the

>>>>> customer’s

>>>>> > higher bandwidth providers will win vs. the aggregate.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Does removing this connectivity fig leaf really change the nature of

>>>>> the

>>>>> > assignment in a meaningful way?

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> Is that the purpose for which the IPv4 space was obtained and

>>>>> justified?

>>>>> > Since I don’t have access to anyone’s IPv4 justifications to AFRINIC

>>>>> in a

>>>>> > manner which would allow me to comment publicly, I’m going to skip

>>>>> this

>>>>> > question. Suffice it to say, I can imagine a number of ways in which

>>>>> this

>>>>> > is possible.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> There are "rules" that say an LIR should notify when use of an IP

>>>>> block

>>>>> >> changes.

>>>>> > Yes. The rules are, however, ambiguous at best and it’s not clear at

>>>>> what

>>>>> > level of detail a “change” is constituted nor is it clear whether an

>>>>> update

>>>>> > to whois is adequate notification in most circumstances.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> I see a big difference between changes *within an LIR* and changes

>>>>> to

>>>>> >> *use the IP space outside the AfriNIC member LIR*.

>>>>> > So if I have space that was allocated to my LIR and I assigned it to

>>>>> > customer A who is using the space in their network (technically

>>>>> outside

>>>>> > of my LIR), but then they return the space when they get their own

>>>>> > block and become a BYOA customer, my assigning that space to customer

>>>>> > B for their use on their network (also outside my LIR) becomes a

>>>>> problem

>>>>> > or change in the usage exactly why?

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> With the first, I consider it generally accepted that justification

>>>>> remains.

>>>>> >> With the latter, I believe that the *LIR that subscribed to AfriNIC

>>>>> >> rules* has shown to no longer have the justification for these IPs

>>>>> for

>>>>> >> connectivity and hosting, including "PA" customers.

>>>>> > What if the justification in question was not “connectivity and

>>>>> hosting”?

>>>>> >

>>>>> > What if the justification was “Numbering hosts on customer networks”?

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> The reason for doing the latter is obviously $profit, and yes -

>>>>> some "

>>>>> >> are going to do what they are going to do ".

>>>>> > The reason for the former was obviously profit, too. Nobody is in

>>>>> business

>>>>> > to subsidize the benefits of others without making a profit.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> And what this community allows them to get away with.

>>>>> > It’s not so much a question of “get away with” as “what the rules

>>>>> actually

>>>>> > say” from my perspective. You may wish to argue that the intent or

>>>>> even

>>>>> > the clear intent of the community is something else, but in reality,

>>>>> for rules to be

>>>>> > useful, one must consider what the rules actually say, and not the

>>>>> current

>>>>> > popular interpretation of intent around the rules.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Making it up as we go along has become somewhat of an AFRINIC

>>>>> tradition

>>>>> > at this point, seemingly both in the staff actions and in the board,

>>>>> PDWG,

>>>>> > community, and various committees.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > There’s also a pretty strong history of doing so being the source of

>>>>> a great

>>>>> > many problems, so I continue to hope that we can learn from those

>>>>> mistakes

>>>>> > and start actually following the rules as they are written and

>>>>> making the

>>>>> > changes necessary through the proper processes when the rules do not

>>>>> > meet the perceived needs of the current situation.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> To be Frank: I simply don't believe that

>>>>> >> AS212552    "BitCommand" in Armenia gets IP connectivity services

>>>>> from

>>>>> >> ... you know who.

>>>>> > Honestly, I don’t know who, but it’s easy enough to look up:

>>>>> >

>>>>> > https://bgp.he.net/AS212552#_irr

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Says that they get apparent transit from AS64515 and AS24940.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > This seems to be borne out by https://bgp.he.net/AS212552#_graph4

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> In other continents / RIRs the IPv4 space is finished. Noone has any

>>>>> >> hope of justifying any with the RIR. Some have more than they need -

>>>>> >> give or sell it to others that have "a need" and the market can

>>>>> probably

>>>>> >> regulate that.

>>>>> > ARIN is still issuing /24s under NRPM section 4.10, so that’s not

>>>>> entirely

>>>>> > correct.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> But AfriNIC still has and is distributing IPv4 - should it do so by

>>>>> >> "whoever pays most" or "everyone according to their need [upto a /22

>>>>> >> ;-)]". Has it given IPv4 resources to members according to their

>>>>> >> respective (perceived) needs???

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >> Wasn't one of the rules that the LIR was to use the IPs for the

>>>>> >> connectivity (or hosting) services?

>>>>> > I’ve reviewed the bylaws, the RSA, and the CPM pretty carefully. I

>>>>> couldn’t

>>>>> > find a connectivity requirement other than one that calls for the

>>>>> numbers

>>>>> > to be “routed on the internet” (which, btw, is a unique requirement

>>>>> in

>>>>> > AFRINIC not present in other RIRs).

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> Are the rules still applicable?

>>>>> > The rules still apply as written, but that’s the real sticking

>>>>> point. Do we

>>>>> > want to focus on the common perception of what we think the rules

>>>>> > say (as you have done above) or do we want to review the rules as

>>>>> > they are written and call for the enforcement of those rules

>>>>> according

>>>>> > to a plain text interpretation of their actual content?

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> bit more below...

>>>>> >>

>>>>> >>> I’m not particularly happy about this reality, but I do recognize

>>>>> that

>>>>> >>> it is, in fact, reality and I’m not in favor of giving RIRs guns or

>>>>> >>> the ability to incarcerate people. Contracts only get you so far

>>>>> and

>>>>> >>> clever people can always find ways to comply with the letter of a

>>>>> >>> contract while circumventing the other party's intent if they want

>>>>> to

>>>>> >>> try hard enough.

>>>>> >>>

>>>>> >>> So no, these are not “nice words”, they are the recognition of

>>>>> >>> unpleasant and inconvenient truths that like it or not, we are

>>>>> faced

>>>>> >>> with new realities, economic, technical, and legal.

>>>>> >> Is one of these realities that an LIR got resources from AfriNIC for

>>>>> >> providing connectivity (or hosting) services, and now these are no

>>>>> >> longer in place?

>>>>> > I have no knowledge of such a situation, but in truth I have not read

>>>>> > the original justification for the space issued to the LIR I think

>>>>> you

>>>>> > are referring to.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >>> In many countries legal frameworks the lack of a transfer policy

>>>>> >>> allowing registrants to monetize the transfer of their

>>>>> registrations

>>>>> >>> could be considered either restraint of trade or an

>>>>> >>> anti-trust/anti-competitive matter.

>>>>> >> the fact is that these numbers should be unique and centrally

>>>>> managed.

>>>>> >> These anti-trust lawyers can send a better proposal for managing

>>>>> them.

>>>>> > The ability to sell one’s registration to another does not in any

>>>>> way impinge

>>>>> > the central management of numbers for uniqueness.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> The question is whether "according to need" or "according to whoever

>>>>> >> offers more $$".

>>>>> > This assumes that monetized transfers and/or leasing cannot be done

>>>>> > on the basis of need, which is a false premise. To the best of my

>>>>> knowledge,

>>>>> > Larus is quite scrupulous and detailed in collecting need

>>>>> justification from

>>>>> > customers prior to issuing addresses to them. That is certainly the

>>>>> written

>>>>> > company policy and has been the case with each and every recipient

>>>>> > case I have been involved with in my consulting for them.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> Should I be allowed to "buy" a /16 from AfriNIC, put it in a safe,

>>>>> sell

>>>>> >> it 3 years later for $profit ???

>>>>> > No. The rules prohibit you putting it in a safe and not routing it.

>>>>> Also, you

>>>>> > aren’t buying the /16, you are paying a fee for the service of

>>>>> recording and

>>>>> > maintaining the registration of the space. You can’t sell the

>>>>> integers, but

>>>>> > selling the registration of the integers has become common practice

>>>>> > worldwide whether you like it or not.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> Is that the purpose for which AfriNIC got the /8's from IANA?

>>>>> > Things have changed since the IANA was issuing /8s. The world has

>>>>> changed.

>>>>> > Many of the /8s were issued by the IANA in order to support Email,

>>>>> FTP, and

>>>>> > NNTP. I suspect there are very few servers running FTP or NNTP these

>>>>> days,

>>>>> > and while EMAIL is still a pervasive technology (for better or

>>>>> worse), it is not

>>>>> > a significant fraction of internet traffic.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Very few of the /8s issued by IANA were issued during a time when

>>>>> streaming

>>>>> > video could have been considered as a purpose for issuing them, yet

>>>>> today

>>>>> > it is probably the largest consumer of bandwidth on the internet by

>>>>> far.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Should we require all of the RIRs that have issued space to Netflix

>>>>> after

>>>>> > IANA runout to reclaim and return that space to IANA and rejustify

>>>>> it because

>>>>> > streaming video was not the purpose for which it was issued?

>>>>> >

>>>>> > I think not.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >> PS: all or most questions are serious. answers will help.

>>>>> > All of the answers were serious as well. I’d expect nothing less from

>>>>> > someone of your stature in the community.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > I hope the answers are helpful.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Owen

>>>>> >

>>>>> >

>>>>> > _______________________________________________

>>>>> > 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

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210703/bf678711/attachment-0001.html>