[rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)

[Seun Ojedeji]

Well said Nishal and since it seem Nia, Asamkele, Gugu, and Tshepo, agree
on the same philosophy and infact they share similar content, perhaps they
can form co authors to propose what they feel is a better policy.

However for now I support AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 to move pass the last
call.

Regards

----
Sent from my mobile
kindly excuse typos



On Sat, 18 Jul 2026, 2:59 pm Nishal Goburdhan, <nishal at controlfreak.co.za>
wrote:

>
>
> On 18 Jul 2026, at 21:05, Asamkele Menzeleli wrote:
>
> > My objection therefore remains. The proposal has not shown that
> compulsory
> > hierarchical naming is necessary to protect number-resource uniqueness,
> nor
> > that the registry should extend its mandatory policy authority into this
> > area.
>
>
> what you meant to say is that it hasn’t shown this “to you”.
> and that’s ok;  policy proposals are never about appeasing everyone.  they
> are about making incremental benefit.
> what you are not seeing, is that this solution, has already been
> demonstrated elsewhere in the world, has actually solved
> Real-World-Operational problems.
> you’re forgiven if you don’t see these problems - again - not everyone
> lives and speaks bgp.
>
> but maybe i’m wrong - and maybe you *have* found a better sauce to solving
> these problems;  problems which, real world network operators, have already
> shown can be exploited, to significant detriment.  in which case, please
> share that, because we’d love to benefit from your operational prowess.
> but, f you haven’t - either found that sauce, or, are unwilling to share,
> then appreciate that those of us that operate real networks, want the
> better protections that this proposal brings.  even if you don’t.  here’s
> the thing;  the threat that “flat” names creates has already done this -
> ie. they *have* been exploited, for no good, in the wild.  this is already
> well documented, and discussed in operator forums.  and the objections as i
> read them - and however strongly you may feel about them - haven’t failed
> to address any kind of solution, or provided a technical alternate, or,
> actually done anything except say:   “well, i don’t agree”
>
> also, as a tip, the last call part of the proposal is where you address
> concerns that the _particular policy_ might have.  you haven’t really done
> any of that.  so please, try to focus your the discussion on _technical
> merit solely_.  here’s what would help:
> - show an alternate solution by a vendor / from a technical list
> - show real world problems that this creates, as documented on a technical
> forum (eg. afnog, sidr, secops, ..)
>
> no-one here has all the answers;  and, if we discover in 10years, that
> “flat” names were better, no penguins would have been harmed.  but, we
> would have enabled protections for african operators.
>
> —n.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260718/c9636712/attachment.html>