db-wg

Download

db-wg@ripe.net

October 2001

16 participants
12 discussions

draft agenda (v3 final?), for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 40, Prague
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 03 Oct '01

03 Oct '01

Dear WG list members, attached please find the 3rd (final?) draft: Proposed Agenda for the DB-WG Meeting in Prague, CZ. Item I. was added, a couple of typos were fixed as well... Please note: "the legacy address object migration" is on the draft agenda for the Plenary ("Transfer of Pre/RIR Addess Space") Looking forward to see many of you in Prague, Wilfried. ______________________________________________________________________ Proposed Agenda for the Database Working Group Meeting RIPE-40, Oct. 1-5 2001, Prague, CZ 3. Draft Thursday, October 4th, 2001 09:00-12:30 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A. Administrative stuff (WW, chair) . volunteering a scribe . circulate list of participants . agenda bashing . status of minutes B. Actions Items . status of actions C. DB update (RIPE NCC, Andrei R.) 30 min . operations report . software status . migration summary D. removal of "orphaned" person objects (RIPE NCC, N.N.) 10 min . report and conclusions (if any :-) E. Status of the Merit RADB/IRRd 20 min (Larry J. Blunk, Merit Network, Inc.) F. Report and final discussion: "irt:" object implementation 20 min (Wilfried W., RIPE NCC, N.N.) . review of implementation proposal (summary write-up was sent to DB-WG on Aug 23rd) . review of operational impact (scripts/marketing...) . interworking with "abuse-pointers"? G. What is the Universal Whois Project? 25 min (Mark Kosters, VeriSign Labs) The intended audience would be those who are interested in discussing requirements for domain information lookup but may have direct relevance for information lookups within ip allocations et al. H. Modification of changed: attribute (RIPE NCC, Andrei R.) 15 min . problem statement . proposal . discussion I. "organisation:" Object re-visited 10 min (George Michaelson, APNIC) . background . problem statement . discussion (and proposal?) Y. Input from other WGs . Z. AOB: . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WW, 25-SEP-2001 23:16:18 _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

LIR-PARTITIONED proposal (originally LIR-ALLOCATED)
by Nurani Nimpuno 01 Oct '01

01 Oct '01

LIR-PARTITIONED PROPOSAL ------------------------ Following James Aldridge's proposal below, here follows an implementation proposal by the RIPE NCC for a new status value in the RIPE Database. Background ----------- This proposal (originally named "LIR-ALLOCATED"was originally discussed at September 1999. James Aldridge later sent out a first proposal to the LIR-WG mailing list, 14 January 2000. (See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20000101-20000401/msg00007.ht…) The full final proposal (15 January 2001) by Aldridge can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20010101-20010401/msg00003.ht… At the RIPE 38 meeting,(22-26 January 2001), the RIPE NCC accepted the action to implement this proposal. Motivation (as expressed by James Aldridge) -------------------------------------------- "For various reasons large registries often need to distribute their allocated address space between various parts of their organisation (for example we have separate national operations in 20 or so countries obtaining address space through the eu.eunet registry). In these situations it makes sense to document this redistribution in the RIPE database but there is currently no way to do this without throwing up errors in the RIPE NCC's auditing procedures or by removing flexibility and adding more work to the already busy NCC hostmasters by having each local operation treated as having their own allocation. Previously the RIPE database software allowed anyone to register an object with a status value of "ALLOCATED" but this was abused by people who didn't know what they were doing and so this is no longer possible and all non-NCC registered inetnum objects must now have the status of "ASSIGNED". However, having multiple levels of assignments in the RIPE database causes error reports from the NCC's auditing processes which now see anything under the higher- lever sub-allocation as being a duplicate (or overlapping) assignment which makes finding "real" problem assignments difficult or impossible. By allowing a local IR to register an inetnum object with a new status value of "LIR-ALLOCATED" it becomes possible to differentiate between a higher level sub-allocation ("status: LIR-ALLOCATED") and a final assignment by a LIR ("status: ASSIGNED"). By allowing this registration of intermediate objects it would also be possible to restrict changes to lower-level objects differently in different blocks of addresses within the LIR's allocation by setting different "mnt-lower" values without having to open the whole allocated block up for changes by anyone who might have a valid reason for updating a particular (range of) inetnum object(s)." Proposed Name ------------- RIPE NCC proposes to use the term: "LIR-PARTITIONED" ("LIR-PARTITIONED PA" and "LIR-PARTITIONED PI") rather than "LIR-ALLOCATED", to clarify the use of this added database feature. As "LIR-ALLOCATED" could be misinterpreted as a policy feature, we believe that "LIR-PARTITIONED" is a more suitable term, not involving policy terminology, but merely describing a partition of the LIR's allocation. Database Objects affected ------------------------- Only inetnum objects may have the "LIR-PARTITIONED" status value. Usage ----- The "LIR-PARTITIONED" feature allows LIRs to delegate maintenance of lower-level objects representing assignments within the address space specified by the inetnum object with the status "LIR-PARTITIONED PA" OR "LIR-PARTITIONED PI". Functionality ------------- When creating or modifying the inetnum object the database will check the value of the "status:" attribute according to the following rules: - The value of "ALLOCATED PA" or "ALLOCATED PI" is allowed if the object is maintained by the RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mntner (this name is specified in ALLOCMNT variable of the configuration file) - The value of "LIR-PARTIONED PA" is allowed if one level less specific inetnum object contains a "status:" attribute with the value of "ALLOCATED PA". - The value of "LIR-PARTITIONED PI" is allowed if one level less specific inetnum object contains a "status:" attribute with the value of "ALLOCATED PI". Additional clarification ------------------------ This proposal addresses the added inetnum status value as proposed by James Aldridge. This is strictly a database feature, allowing LIRs to delegate maintenance within their allocations in the RIPE Database. An implementation of this proposal would not affect IP address allocation policy. It would not change the responsibility LIRs have for allocations and assignments held by them. Furthermore, it would not change the manner in which the RIPE NCC verifies allocation utilisation. Timeline -------- Before RIPE 41, January 2002. ---------------- As explained above, this implementation proposal only relates to the proposal outlined in this mail. We welcome the feedback from the LIR-WG and the DB-WG on the "LIR-PARTITIONED" proposal. However, recent comments on the lir-wg mailing list have indicated a wish among some members of the community for a more extensive change, allowing LIRs to sub-allocate IPv4 address space to subsidiaries or downstream ISPs. Such a change would be a rather significant change in current IPv4 address allocation policy, as it has an impact on the LIR's responsibility for its address space as well as the manner in which the RIPE NCC would verify utilisation. If the general feeling in the community is that the "LIR-PARTITIONED" proposal does not cover the LIRs' need, but a more significant change to current IP allocation policy is necessary, then I propose that this be discussed in detail in the LIR-WG. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno *--------------------------------------------------------* | Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)ripe.net> | | Internet Address Policy Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | *--------------------------------------------------------*

2 1