Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Noah noah at
Sun Aug 1 18:34:55 UTC 2021

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021, 21:06 Owen DeLong, <owen at> wrote:



> On Aug 1, 2021, at 07:30 , Noah <noah at> wrote:




> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 7:38 AM Owen DeLong via RPD <rpd at>

> wrote:




>> > On Jul 24, 2021, at 08:48 , Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at>

>> 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 that their LOAs for the space were no longer valid and that they were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



> If you were receiving IP Transit Services from AS37100, our policy is that

> we will maintain provision of service whilst there is a verifiable IRR

> object and/or a valid ROA.


> The change that is described here would not have revoked your services

> with us.


> In fact, most IPT operate in this manner fwiw.



> Most != All.


> Meaning some do not.


> Meaning that some caused real problems for Cloud Innovation customers


You will need to prove that... meanwhile

AFRINIC communique included the below statement.

"In order not to disrupt Internet connectivity of the relevant users
especially in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, all affected
users will exceptionally be granted a grace period of 90 days to consider
other available options in their best interests. Consequently, the actual
reclamation of the relevant number resources will occur following the
expiry of the grace period."

- No ROA was affected

- No IRR data was affected

- Packet flows don't depend on whois descriptor field. LIR update whois
descriptions all the time.

- IPT providers pull IRR data to populate their filters and look at ROAs,
none of which was affected.

And this is why AFRINIC responsibly stated the above <snip> in
consideration of end-users.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list