<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Dear Patrick, Community;<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Here you have it, your dose of constructivism, </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Concerning the AFRINIC, I am not implying that they should stop removing the Whois Database and there is no need to reverse the DNS when space is reclaimed because as a result of the simplicity and the scalability of the DNS, it has become a web of internet service location and as such has it own drawbacks. There is no need for AFRINIC to do such as the availability of the DNSSEC devised by the IETF already provides a specialised form of PKI to help authenticate information related to the DNS. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Elvis<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 1, 2020, at 10:14, Patrick Okui <<a href="mailto:pokui@psg.com" class="">pokui@psg.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/xhtml; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div style="font-family:sans-serif" class=""><div style="white-space:normal" class=""><p dir="auto" class="">[resent with RPD cc’ed]</p><p dir="auto" class="">Dear Elvis,</p><p dir="auto" class="">You are requesting for constructivism and I think you should show it as well. You are responding to an email I wrote by repeating Lamiaa’s points without addressing my points towards that. You actually didn’t cc the mailing list.</p><p dir="auto" class="">Specifically could you answer the following:</p>
<ol class="">
<li value="1" class=""><p dir="auto" class="">Do you imply that AFRINIC should stop removing whois objects, reverse DNS when they reclaim space? Doing so will affect any sessions with someone who builds filters from such data.</p></li>
<li value="2" class=""><p dir="auto" class="">Which routing database are you referring to? the IRDB? RPKI doesn’t read/write to that. Or do you mean the BGP routing table? Based on your answer to 1 above there’s no difference to the BGP routing table. Operators who chose to filter on the various sources can decide what they accept or reject.</p></li>
</ol><p dir="auto" class="">On 1 Oct 2020, at 3:48 EAT, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:</p>
</div>
<div style="white-space:normal" class=""><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #5855D5; color:#5855D5; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px" class=""><p dir="auto" class="">Dear Jordi, Noah,<br class="">
<br class="">
I am in support of what Lamiaa pointed out earlier, the major priority of the AFRINIC RIR is a registration and interference with the routing is outside the scope of the AFRINIC and if a mistake is made with the routing database, it will create a tremendous disaster that will result to a shutdown of the internet and loss of connection but as for the registration database errors, it can be easily amended.<br class="">
<br class="">
Also, the ASO for unallocated or unassigned AFRINIC Address space will cognitively give the AFRINIC organisation excessive power than they already have and this can result to a centralisation of the control of the internet which can be and result to an abuse of power. This RPKI policy is highly disputed and receives no trust from most Internet providers.<br class="">
<br class="">
Utilize the sense of constructivism which you claim to have or be and discuss this matter for the greater good of the region and the promotion of internet as well as businesses in the African region.<br class="">
<br class="">
Elvis</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #5855D5; color:#00AFCC; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px; border-left-color:#00AFCC" class=""><p dir="auto" class="">On Oct 1, 2020, at 09:17, Patrick Okui <<a href="mailto:pokui@psg.com" class="">pokui@psg.com</a>> wrote:<br class="">
<br class="">
Hi Lamiaa,<br class="">
<br class="">
Firstly thanks for giving actual examples of where you see this as interference with routing. It makes it easier to see your point of view.<br class="">
<br class="">
Jordi and Noah have already responded to this and partially addressed your concerns.<br class="">
<br class="">
There are only two cases where AS0 entries will be made and I think the idea is AFRINIC can publish this in a different TAL.<br class="">
<br class="">
Noah has mentioned this. But this is for address space that is not allocated yet to anyone. In this scenario there is no member who can create RPKI ROA entries for this nor any route(6): objects. Technically this space still “belongs” to AFRINIC. Basically say IANA allocates a new IPv6 subnet to AFRINIC and they create an AS0 entry for it. I think many people have mentioned that this part can even be automated.<br class="">
<br class="">
Address space is reclaimed e.g from a member not in good standing. This is inline with the RSA etc and goes through a verification process (not special to RPKI nor whois nor reverse DNS). At this point, whois objects (e.g inetnum:) are also removed and therefore any route: objects that depend on them will disappear. Similarly reverse DNS dies. I believe the discussions around this were concluded but someone can kindly refresh my understanding. So, in this case, AFRINIC will be modifying potentially routing impacting entries as they should and already can.<br class="">
<br class="">
Note that if by some weird error AFRINIC creates or removes wrong whois entries it will impact your routing. But this is not very different as if IANA somehow publishes the wrong prefix allocated to the wrong RIR.<br class="">
<br class="">
So your two points specifically 1. AFRINIC doesn’t have actions they currently do that can affect routing and 2. The current operations do not have situations where some theoretical mistake can not affect existing members routing are not true. Any potential mistakes with your prefix showing up in AS0 would be handled same way potential errors with your inetnum: (and therefore route:) objects disappearing. By contacting member services. I hope you are not suggesting that if AFRINIC finally reclaim address space they should not remove whois objects because they theoretically may make a mistake.<br class="">
<br class="">
Kindly advise where I’m missing something.<br class="">
<br class="">
On 30 Sep 2020, at 21:57 EAT, Lamiaa Chnayti wrote:<br class="">
<br class="">
Hey Jordi,<br class="">
<br class="">
The very fundamental objection to this policy, is that RIR is about registration polices, and not routing policies.<br class="">
<br class="">
This is a policy that potentially asks AFRINIC to proactively interfere with routing, which is out of scope of RIR’s mandate.<br class="">
<br class="">
Before this policy, all route object of AFRINIC or RPKI provided by AFRINIC, are created by its members, so those operate the networks, AFRINIC does not proactively create route object or change RPKI for any of resource it manages registration with.<br class="">
<br class="">
And this policy changes that, and this is not what AFRINIC should or is meant to do.<br class="">
<br class="">
And of course, when you ask Afrinic to interfere with routing, a mistake in registration does not immediately impact network operation, but a mistake in routing, it does, so others have raised concern over potential mistake of Afrinic or Afrinic staff, in which in the past there was serious mistakes made by staff members, and potential legal consequence of that is another major objection to this policy.<br class="">
<br class="">
Please read and consider, and don’t act like everybody including chairs are fools and you are the only smart guy in the room, let’s discuss this matter in a constructive way<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards,<br class="">
<br class="">
Lamiaa<br class="">
<br class="">
Le mer. 30 sept. 2020 à 15:43, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" class="">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" class="">mailto:rpd@afrinic.net</a>>> a écrit :<br class="">
Hi AK, Moses, all,<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
I will like you to reconsider your decision on this proposal, following CPM 3.5, on the grounds of my responses below, which have already been provided thru previous discussions and I don’t think any of those are valid-objections to the proposal.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
See my points below, in-line.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards,<br class="">
<br class="">
Jordi<br class="">
<br class="">
@jordipalet<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
7. RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space<br class="">
<br class="">
The proposal instructs AFRINIC to create ROAs for all unallocated and unassigned address space under its control. This will enable networks performing RPKI-based BGP Origin Validation to easily reject all the bogon announcements covering resources managed by AFRINIC. However, there are many oppositions such as:<br class="">
<br class="">
a. Allowing resource holders to create AS0/ ROA will lead to an increase of even more invalid prefixes in the routing table.<br class="">
<br class="">
This shows a lack of understanding of RPKI and the relevant RFCs. Resource holders *ALREADY CAN and DO* that (example IXPs), in fact they do. This has been explained in my presentation. The proposal is just adding clarity on this point, not changing anything.<br class="">
<br class="">
b. Revocation time of AS0 state, and the time for new allocation doesn’t match.<br class="">
<br class="">
This is not true, again a misunderstanding about how RPKI works. Several members discussed this in the list. If you get resources, normally you don’t publish them in minutes, so hours, or even days is perfectly valid. In addition to that, it can be improved thru implementation, as I already explained. The staff could tentatively release from the AS0 the resources that they plan to allocate (pending on final documentation, RSA signature, or review with the member, etc.).<br class="">
<br class="">
c. Other RIRs don’t have a similar the policy therefore, it can not be effective<br class="">
<br class="">
All the policies have different discussions in different RIRs at different times. This policy is already available in APNIC and LACNIC. There are policies in AFRINIC which aren’t in other RIRs. Does that make them invalid (or in other words, this is an invalid objection – is good that all RIRs do the same, but is not always that the case, or not at the same time).<br class="">
<br class="">
d. This will become a uniform policy if it is not globally implemented, which causes additional stress.<br class="">
<br class="">
Absolutely not, the way we suggest the staff, and they confirmed, with an independent TAL protects *as expected by the proposal* the resources of the RIR implementing it, not creating *any issue* in what is done in other RIRs to any operator.<br class="">
<br class="">
e. Validity period: if members decide to implement it, is it not better to recover the space if it is kept unused for too long?<br class="">
<br class="">
This doesn’t make sense, at least not as worded. This is not about recovering space, no relation. It is the unused space hold by AFRINIC.<br class="">
<br class="">
e. How do we revoke the ROA? How long does it take to revoke it (chain/ refreshing )?<br class="">
<br class="">
This is the same as b above, right? It doesn’t matter in practice, if it takes minutes or hours or even days.<br class="">
<br class="">
f. What happens if AFRINIC accidentally issues a ROA for an address in error?<br class="">
<br class="">
Exactly the same if the existing RPKI fails, and that’s why there are monitoring systems in place and caches, etc. This proposal doesn't change that.<br class="">
<br class="">
g. It also might affect the neighbours and involves monitoring of unallocated spaces.<br class="">
<br class="">
What is the meaning of neighbours here? Yes, the same monitoring that *right now* should be done by AFRINIC. This proposal ensures that it is improved so hijacking of unused space is less prone to occur, that the purpose of the proposal and RPKI, increase the routing security.<br class="">
<br class="">
h. Possibility of it being used against a member who is yet to pay dues.<br class="">
<br class="">
AFRINIC has the obligation to avoid members not paying to stop using the resources, so they are available to other members. Even if we don’t have this proposal, AFRINIC could, following the bylaws and RSA, do whatever actions, including technical ones, to make sure that they are not used.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Suggestions were made to improve the policy such as<br class="">
<br class="">
a) The automatic creation of AS0 ROAs should be limited to space that has never been allocated by an RIR or part of a legacy allocation.<br class="">
<br class="">
This doesn’t make any sense and has not been considered at all in other RIRs discussions. That will mean that even if a member return the space, and stop replying to AFRINIC, the space will never come to the AS0 ROAs. This is related also to the next point.<br class="">
<br class="">
b) AFRINIC should require the explicit consent of the previous holder to issue AS0 ROAs in respect of re-claimed, returned, etc, space.<br class="">
<br class="">
This doesn’t make any sense and has not been considered at all in other RIRs discussions. If a member is not following the established legal bindings, not just AFRINIC, but *any* organization, has the obligation, to ensure that the member is not cheating the other members and take any actions they can to fullfill the recovery or whatever is needed. The proposal doesn’t state if AFRINIC should take some intermediate steps in cases of litigation, disagreements, etc. however, the legal documents already state that they should try to remediate the situation before the recovery, so it is clearly part of the existing process and will not only affect this proposal but all the CPM. A member can just disappear (a bankruptcy), so if this is not done, the resources could never be recovered, while the legal documents, already state that!<br class="">
<br class="">
c) Any ROAs issued under this policy should be issued and published in a way that makes it operationally easy for a relying party to ignore them (probably by issuing under a separate TA).<br class="">
<br class="">
This is already explicit in the proposal and confirmed by the staff. Nevertheless, it is an operational decision, and could be changed over the time.<br class="">
<br class="">
d) The proposal should include the clause “as used in APNIC as to dues not paid on time.”<br class="">
<br class="">
Can you please point to the relevant presentation? I’ve followed, and reviewer all the APNIC work on this (I participated in all that) and I can’t find what you mean.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Chairs Decision: No consensus<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
**********************************************<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
IPv4 is over<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com/" class="">http://www.theipv6company.com</a> <<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com/" class="">http://www.theipv6company.com/</a>><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
The IPv6 Company<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
<br class="">
RPD mailing list<br class="">
<br class="">
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="">mailto:RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br class="">
<br class="">
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br class="">
<br class="">
-- <br class="">
Lamiaa CHNAYTI<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
RPD mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br class="">
--<br class="">
patrick<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
RPD mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></p>
</blockquote></blockquote></div>
<div style="white-space:normal" class=""><p dir="auto" class="">--<br class="">
patrick</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>