> On Dec 16, 2018, at 12:11 , Komi Elitcha <[email protected]> wrote: > > Owen, > > Le 15/12/2018 à 02:39, Owen DeLong a écrit : >> >> >>> On Dec 14, 2018, at 16:01 , Komi Elitcha <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Owen >>>> Larus is a resource holder like any other resource holder. The fact that >>>> they are a large resource holder does not make them any worse or >>>> better than any other resource holder, so I’m not sure why you believe >>>> the number of IPv4 addresses they hold have any bearing on the >>>> discussion. >>> What make Larus singular is that this organization through an LIR >>> membership, holds 6 million IPv4 space, more IPv4 space than even >>> countries like Nigeria, Kenya and Algeria (*). The same Larus has no real >>> Internet infrastructure on-continent nor any serious services being >>> consumed by customers on the continent. >> >> If your statements are true (they aren’t), > You keep asking for evidence, but fail to prove that the statements are > false. These statements are based on public data, and it looks like you don't > really know your "employer"'s IPv4 portfolio.
First, Larus is NOT my employer. Larus has never been my employer. I have done some (small) contract work for Larus on specific projects. Second, the burden of proof on an unfounded accusation is on the accuser, not on those who disbelieve the accuser. Third, I don’t believe that Larus holds 6 million IPv4 addresses issued by AfriNIC. The public data does not show that they do as near as I can tell. Please, I beg of you, provide reference to the public records which show that Larus holds 6 million IPv4 addresses. Please So, please either present some credible evidence that there is some reason to believe that Larus would fail a review under the proposed policy, or admit you don’t have any. Frankly, since Larus doesn’t appear to hold any IPv4 addresses at all, I think this will be a very difficult thing for you to do, but good luck! >> then how did AfriNIC approve such numbers being issued? > I don't answer for AfriNIC staff, but community trust AfriNIC to always make > the right decisions when allocating resources and also trust them, to do the > due diligence to insure usage are compliant, if not or if resources have been > obtained fraudulently, to act appropriately. OK, then you agree with me that the review policy is unnecessary. AfriNIC is already doing this and the community trusts that they are doing their job. Therefore, the addresses which AfriNIC has repeatedly stated were issued to Larus within policy and after performing (more than usual, IIRC) due diligence on their requests. >>> With NO network, lack of local staff in Africa that could contribute to >>> discussions on Afrinic list or even attend AfriNIC meetings except the >>> known Individual based out of Africa. >> >> Again, more assertions without evidence. > > It should have been easy for Larus and its employees to show evidence of > network which matches the 6 million addresses. > What we see is just an LIR with huge IPv4 from AFRINIC, no ASN, no IPv6, > marketing IPv4 delegation services worldwide Well… On review of the public record, it appears to me that Larus does not hold 6 million AfriNIC IPv4 addresses. Contorting the PDP to try and organize a witch hunt against a single resource member is simply wrong. Especially when one considers the unintended consequences and extreme costs associated with the likely outcome of the proposal if it were to become policy. (I’m not talking about the costs to AfriNIC, but the costs to the resource members who get subjected to repetitive inquiries under this policy because some random member of the community decides they want to use AfriNIC to harass them.) >>> Therefore besides contracting individual mercenaries to visibly help >>> protect and defend the huge IPv4 pool it holds, by opposing the review >>> policy by all means, one would wonder what value Larus really contributes >>> to the AfriNIC community besides sponsoring newbie students to interfere >>> with PDP. >> >> OK… I get it that you don’t like Larus. Nonetheless, > > it is not about "like" or not a resource member. AFRINIC, LIRs and end-users > members share same responsibilities on good management of resources and must > behave appropriately. Well, it’s true that Larus is a resource member of AfriNIC (specifically the Seychelles Subsidiary of Larus Cloud Service which is also called “Larus Cloud Service”. This subsidiary holds a /22 of IPv4 from AfriNIC, which is 1024 IPv4 addresses, not 6 million. Given that it’s not exactly difficult to use 1024 addresses in a relatively small office, I’m hard pressed to think that you’re going to find a significant waste of resources there. What obligations do you feel that Larus is not living up to here with their 1024 addresses? >> While I have worked with Larus and I know that some of your assertions don’t >> match reality, > > Which assertions ? You assert that they hold 6 million IPv4 addresses from AfriNIC. You assert that they did not comply with policy when they obtained their space. You assert that they are holding more resources than they should be entitled to. You assert that they have no operations in Africa. You assert that they have no staff in Africa. Each of those assertions is actually false. >> I am not bought and paid for >> by Laurs and my opposition to the review policy has nothing to do with their >> holdings or the fact that Larus also opposes the review policy. >> >> My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last June. >> You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have expressed >> objection to every version of the review policy since its inception well >> before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any connection whatsoever >> to Larus. > > Why do you keep repeating this statement about your work relationship to > Larus? > In our African culture, repeating statements like this, does show that > something is worrying you. Because you keep repeating the accusation that my opinion is somehow for sale. I am offended by this ad hominem attack and each time it is reasserted, I will defend myself. In my culture, letting an unfounded accusation stand leads to people believing that you are granting it tacit agreement. > We know your record on “vaporware” till now… Really, you want to bring up a comment from nearly a year before AfriNIC issued it’s first resource again? Dude, that was more than 13 years ago… A lot has changed since then, including AfriNIC becoming more than vaporware. >>> That is where the problem lays… >> >> This is where you think the problem lies. >> >> I think that your baseless accusations and your assumption that Larus uses >> their addresses in violation of the policies under which they were issued is >> part of where the problem lies. I think that the single-minded pursuit of an >> agenda against a single resource member by most of the proponents of this >> policy is beginning to show this policy for what it truly is… An attack on >> large resource members by another portion of the community. >> >> Larus is a convenient target, but they are not the only opposition to the >> review policy. >> >> Multiple people with no association to Larus have expressed opposition. >> >> Review the archives. While your above admission that Larus is the main >> target of this policy is enlightening regarding the motives of the >> proponents, the reality is that Larus is just one of many organizations >> affiliated with voices opposing this proposal. > > The review policy proposal applies to all members as stated clearly in the > text. All AfriNIC members are supposed to pass review or get help to improve > usability. Sure, except that the burden of the review process scales faster than linearly with organization size and network complexity. > Larus's behaviour in opposing the review proposal by all means, only drag > more attention to them! I don’t see Larus using any means to oppose this procedure that have not been used by other organizations as well. > Other objectors have brought relevant objections which were discussed and > addressed. We are only left with, objections like: > - AFRINIC is just bookkeeper and has no right to review members I don’t think you’ve ever seen me make this objection. > - AFRINIC is a $4 million organization and will not stand in court in front > of big members Nor this one. > - The review policy allow DDoS attacks from small members to the big members You are misquoting me here as well. I said “DoS”, not “DDoS”. > - This policy is not needed as RSA already has provision for review. This is true and is a valid objection to the proposal. > - Members buy resources and AFRINIC can't recall them I don’t think you’ve ever seen me make this assertion in any form. > - etc…. Yes, you conveniently left out some significant etc. - The proposal would have a disproportionate negative impact on larger more complex networks. - The proposal uses a number of terms which are not well defined in the proposal or the policy manual, such as “full review” and depending on the interpretation of these terms, could have radically different levels of burden or very different impacts on the community. I suspect there are others, but I’d have to go back through the archives and I don’t have time to do that right now. Owen
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
