[rpd] Last Call - RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT03.

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 24, 2021, at 08:48 , Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> wrote:

> 

> On 22 Jul 2021, at 16:53, Owen DeLong via RPD wrote:

>> 

>> This was not true. Because of the way they modified whois, multiple providers started rejecting LOAs as invalid and disconnecting customers.

> 

> in my experience it takes quite a lot to (sometimes, even legitimately!) get an operator to disconnect a client that is paying them.  so, i’m curious;  what, specifically, was it about the change of a descriptor field in whois that caused your clients to start to be disconnected from their fee-inducing providers?  in your answer, i’d like you to focus on the elements that network operators care about please - we don’t need any more arm-chair jurors, nor judges.


I am neither an arm chair juror nor judge. I will state that an actual judge (in fact, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Mauritius) issued an order asking AFRINIC to immediately correct the WHOIS entries and restore Cloud Innovation’s membership on July 13th. Clearly he felt that CI’s claims of harm and the merits of the case were sufficient to grant such relief.

Upon the announcement, several providers proactively reached out to CI clients and told them that in light of the AFRINIC announcement, they felt that their LOAs for the space were no longer valid and that they were beginning termination procedures. I don’t know whether this was a passive response to the announcement by AFRINIC or whether AFRINIC reached out to upstreams to further undermine CI’s client base. Clearly, AFRINIC 

> here’s a short list of things that i would look for (and which are relevant to discuss here):

> # were existing IRR objects removed/replaced?

I’m not sure.

> # were new contradictory IRR objects introduced?

I honestly don’t know.

> # were existing ROAs revoked/replaced/removed?

Clients were notified of pending termination based on invalidation of their LOAs. I do not know if any clients were actually disconnected, but needless to say it created quite a bit of unnecessary fear and concern among CI clients, providers, etc.


> afrinic said neither of these were touched.  are you saying they lied?

> (i admit, i don’t actually know and i would be genuinely horrified if this were the case)


I am only stating that WHOIS changes resulted in actual problems for CI clients. I have not made any statements about IRR objects as I simply don’t know.


>>> Following the policy text, this is exactly the same thing. If there is a disagreement and then a recovery, until the recovery is “final” (the 3 months I just mention) the resources will not be incorporated in the AS0.

>> 

>> Yes, but you are now assuming that AFRINIC will follow their own rules.

> 

> yes.  which, is what they appear to do for 99.95% of their membership, and, have demonstrably done for 15+ years now.  and, quite fortunately, neither you, i, nor anyone else here, *need* to bother to share our opinion on the 0.05% (1/2000), since there’s a court weighing in on it now, eh?


Uh, no, it’s not. They have repeatedly violated their own rules and gotten away with it. Most of the time, nobody objects and most of the time, the violations are minor. Nonetheless, there are numerous historical violations not covered by current litigation. Look at the procedures and irregularities around virtually every election in the last 5 years, for example.


> (ie. let’s stick - objectively- to resource policy here :-))


Sticking to resource policy, fine. I am not the one that launched this subject.

Nonetheless, I am perfectly willing to express my opinion about why this should not become policy in the AFRINIC region based on AFRINIC’s track record with policy, especially most recently.

Whether you consider that objective or not, in reality, this list is about debating policy and subjective opinions are entirely valid in such a debate.

Owen