March 2002 - db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: MD5 proposal
by Janos Zsako 25 Mar '02

25 Mar '02

> From owner-db-wg(a)ripe.net Mon Mar 25 14:29:46 2002 > From: Engin Gunduz <engin(a)ripe.net> > > Let's suppose I send in a message with > > password: Hello > > (note the three spaces). > > > > It is not clear to me where the passphrase would start. I can think of > > two valid approaches: > > 1. At the first character after the first white space (space or tab) > > following the colon (":") (in my example the passphrase would be then > > " Hello"). > > 2. At the first non-whitespace character after the colon (in which case > > the passphrase would be "Hello"). > > > > I think I would vote for the second approach which is more intuitive > > to me. BTW: how does this work with CRYPT-PW? I would think it is the > > second approach. > > Yes, the current approach is the second one. This implicitely > prohibits the use of white space as the first characters of the > password but probably this is less confusing for the users then > having the behaviour you defined in 1. > I don't think this is documented. We'll make sure it will > be in the user manual, and in reference document if > necessary. Great! Thanks. Best regards, Janos

1 0

Re: MD5 proposal
by Janos Zsako 25 Mar '02

25 Mar '02

> From owner-db-wg(a)ripe.net Mon Mar 25 13:26:38 2002 Dear Andrei, > Please find enclosed the MD5 proposal for your comments and suggestions. Great! One small comment, probably need for clarification. > When submitting an update to the database that needs to be authorised using > this scheme, a "password:" pseudo-attribute must be used to submit a key > (passphrase). Line continuation is not allowed for this attribute, so the > whole key should fit on one line. Let's suppose I send in a message with password: Hello (note the three spaces). It is not clear to me where the passphrase would start. I can think of two valid approaches: 1. At the first character after the first white space (space or tab) following the colon (":") (in my example the passphrase would be then " Hello"). 2. At the first non-whitespace character after the colon (in which case the passphrase would be "Hello"). I think I would vote for the second approach which is more intuitive to me. BTW: how does this work with CRYPT-PW? I would think it is the second approach. Best regards, Janos PS: I apologize if this is specified somewhere.

2 1

RE: NRTM proposal
by Lu, Ping 14 Mar '02

14 Mar '02

I believed we are talking about two different things: In your scenario: Your client has a different serial number than RIPE's one. let's say it goes like this, RIPE:123 YOURS:111 RIPE:124 YOURS:111 (filter out) RIPE:125 YOURS:112 RIPE:126 YOURS:112 (filter out) RIPE:127 YOURS:112 (filter out) RIPE:128 YOURS:113 RIPE:129(for some reason it is lost) YOURS:113 RIPE:130 YOURS:113 (filter out) RIPE:131 YOURS:114 How can you tell there is something missing ? Also next time the client restart which serial number is it going to use ? Our scenario: The client maintain the same serial number as RIPE's. RIPE:123 OURS:123 RIPE:124 OURS:124 (dummy update) RIPE:125 OURS:125 RIPE:126 OURS:126 (dummy update) RIPE:127 OURS:127 (dummy update) RIPE:128 OURS:128 RIPE:129(for some reason it is lost) OURS:128 (client detect mismatch stop here) I want to stop discussion about different scenarios and just limit this to the current NRTM practice: NRTM server and client maintain the same serial numbers. Best Regards. Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Arnd Vehling [mailto:av@nethead.de] > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:35 AM > To: Lu, Ping > Cc: 'Andrei Robachevsky'; Bjorn Danielsson; db-beta(a)ripe.net; > 'db-wg(a)ripe.net'; Dieken, Chris; Beaumont, Dave; Resh, Stephanie; Phil > Syskes > Subject: Re: NRTM proposal > > > "Lu, Ping" wrote: > > > me wrote.. > > > To be more precise. The data is up to date if the highest > > > serial number > > > on the mirror server matches the highest serial number on > the client. > > > > > Exactly. That's why the client can't just ignore any > private object. It will > > need to do a dummy update to advance the serial numbers. > > Nope. The only thing which the client really needs to know is > the highest > serial > number _he_, the client, did process. > > If the highest serial number internal to the datastructure of > the client > matches the one of the mirror source is of no concern. > > Please keep in mind that i can write a mirror client which > doesnt needs to > have the same structure as the ripe-db and therefore may very > well miss > a "serial" number like the ripe-server has. > > best regards, > > Arnd > -- > > NetHead Network Design and Security > Arnd Vehling av(a)nethead.De > Gummersbacherstr. 27 Phone: +49 221 8809210 > 50679 Cologne, Germany Fax : +49 221 8809212 >

2 2

RE: NRTM proposal
by Lu, Ping 12 Mar '02

12 Mar '02

> > Hi, > > "Lu, Ping" wrote: > > As I said before if the client can do whatever they want > without maintaining > > > > the correct serial-numbers then how can you tell the data > is up-to-date ? > > To be more precise. The data is up to date if the highest > serial number > on the mirror server matches the highest serial number on the client. > > -- Arnd > Exactly. That's why the client can't just ignore any private object. It will need to do a dummy update to advance the serial numbers. Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net

2 1

RE: NRTM proposal
by Lu, Ping 11 Mar '02

11 Mar '02

> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrei Robachevsky [mailto:andrei@ripe.net] > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:00 AM > To: Lu, Ping > Cc: Bjorn Danielsson; db-beta(a)ripe.net; 'db-wg(a)ripe.net' > Subject: Re: NRTM proposal > > > Hi Ping, > [snip] > > > In fact, with both RIPEv3 and iRRd you can ADD twice (or rather many > times in a row), as this is considered as an update. > > So in our setup we use the approach you decribed below, but > with "ADD" > action. We put a mirror reflector in front of all mirrored > sources, and > every time it sees a non-compliant object mirror reflector > substitutes > it with "ADD + dummy object" without losing track of serials. > That sounds resaonable. If the client side wrapper see a [ADD|UPD|DEL]/unknown_object action then it should translate it to ADD/dummy_object and send it to the database. Should we consider this as the standard way to filter out object or a work-around ? Also can we all agree on a standard dummy_object like "limerick" (no side effect) ? [snip again] Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net

2 1

NRTM proposal
by Lu, Ping 11 Mar '02

11 Mar '02

Since we are talking about NRTM, I would like to raise a question on how to filter out some objects for privacy or other reasons. 1. There are two different cases: NRTM ingress( client mirroring from server) and NRTM egress ( server mirroring into client ) 2. For NRTM egress: Usually want to filter out PERSON object for privacy. 3. For NRTM ingress: Sometime other RR may have polluted route objects or other non-standard RPSL extension. 4. Other than modified the server we can put a wrapper to filter out unwanted object then send a dummy object to the server. 5. The problem is how do you specify action ? Because you can not ADD or DEL twice the same dummy object. So the wrapper have to TRACK the action sequence. This is problematic and sometimes won't work at all. 6. The solution I am proposed is: a DUMMY action for both NRTM ingress and egress. Whenever there is a need to filter some objects, the server will send a dummy object with DUMMY action. Then the NRTM client will accept the DUMMY/dummy stream and increase the serial number without any real action. Any comment ? Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrei Robachevsky [mailto:andrei@ripe.net] > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 5:40 AM > To: Bjorn Danielsson > Cc: db-beta(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: NRTM policy > > > Dear Bjorn Danielsson, > > Bjorn Danielsson wrote: > > > Is anyone on this list using Near-Real-Time Mirroring to > run a mirror > > of the RIPE database? If so, I would like to contact you to find out > > what procedure you went through to become accepted by RIPE > as a client? > > (I tried asking ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net about this but got no > sensible answer.) > > Please reply via private mail to me. > > > > > I am not sure what question you are referring to that got no sensible > answer from the ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net. As far as I know the process of > approving you as a NRTM client has been completed and the address you > requested has been given access to the server. I also believe you > received our standard "NRTM HOWTO" containing necessary information. > > If you need any more assistance in this matter, please don't > hesitate to > contact ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net. In such case I would appreciate > you indicate > more clearly what kind of problem you experience. > > Regards, > > Andrei Robachevsky > Database Group Manager > RIPE NCC >

3 2

Re: Database development plans
by Arnd Vehling 11 Mar '02

11 Mar '02

> > Dear colleagues, > > Please find below a list of the projects that we included in our > development plan. We would appreciate if you could indicate importance > and usefullness of specific projects so we can adjust their priorities. > 2. Real-time (interactive) updates > > Currently only e-mail updates are supported by the RIPE Database which > complicates automation of the update process at the clients side. The > facility that will allow connection oriented interactive, or real-time > updates, will simplify development of the client tools and make > synchronising of LIR's address management database an easier task. > > Once implemented this project will present a facility for other tools, such > as web-based update interface, or a standalone syntax checker. Ral-Time updates would be number one on my personal wish-list! BTW.: There is already a set of php-functions available to interact via. webinterface with ARIN. Perhaps those could be of use to you. best regards, Arnd -- NetHead Network Design and Security Arnd Vehling av(a)nethead.De Gummersbacherstr. 27 Phone: +49 221 8809210 50679 Cologne, Germany Fax : +49 221 8809212

1 0

RE: NRTM proposal
by Lu, Ping 11 Mar '02

11 Mar '02

comments followed. > -----Original Message----- > From: Arnd Vehling [mailto:av@nethead.de] > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 4:01 AM > To: Lu, Ping > Cc: 'Andrei Robachevsky'; Bjorn Danielsson; db-beta(a)ripe.net; > 'db-wg(a)ripe.net'; Dieken, Chris; Beaumont, Dave; Resh, Stephanie; > phil(a)nethead.de > Subject: Re: NRTM proposal > > [snip] > > If receiving a stream with objects considered "non-standard", > or private, all the nrtm client (or the server) has to do > is to filter out objects (and maybe attributes) which are > considered of private nature. The client doesnt need to know > anything about which serial number relates to which object. > (i.e. The serial-numbers must not be in sync between a source > server and the mirror) If you don't care whether the serial-numbers match or not then how can you tell the mirrored data is up-to-date ? > > This can easily be accomplished by creating a perl script > which filters the NRTM ascii stream. > > Actually we are using such a script for synchronizing our > local ip-management ripe-database with the RIPE amsterdam. > > Could you therefore please elaborate on where you are seeing a > problem with the serial-numbers while mirroring? > As I said before if the client can do whatever they want without maintaining the correct serial-numbers then how can you tell the data is up-to-date ? Best Regards. Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net

2 2

RE: NRTM proposal
by Lu, Ping 11 Mar '02

11 Mar '02

Hi, Arnd, comments followed. Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Arnd Vehling [mailto:av@nethead.de] > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 12:45 PM > To: Lu, Ping > Cc: 'Andrei Robachevsky'; Bjorn Danielsson; db-beta(a)ripe.net; > 'db-wg(a)ripe.net' > Subject: Re: NRTM proposal > [snip] > > How about setting up an instance for private objects and one with > standard-objetcs. > Let the one with the private objects synchronize with the standard one > (i.e. per e-mail-script) > As far as RIPE-DB vs. IRRD, RIPE-DB implements IRT object (considered private) but IRRD doesn't. There is always a situation where the standard one need to synchronize with the one with private objects but need to filter out private objects (like RADB mirror from RIPE ). Then internally RIPE NCC will need to mirror the data with IRT to keep the data integrity. > Only standard objects gets exported to the standard-objects > DB. Then let > others mirror > only the instance with the standard objects. The problem is the serial number will increase when you update a private object then when other mirrors get only the standard object the serial number mismatched each other. As regarding to the PERSON object, this is a situation for STANDARD mirroring STANDARD but needs to filter it out also. > > This has also the advantage you dont mix ip-management only data with > routing-registry > relevant data. As you might know Cable&Wireless Europe has modified > version of > the RIPE-DB running which contains only IP-Management data > but no route > objetcs etc. > We choose RIPE-DB software because it does both together while ARIN region use two different databases for Route and IP-Management. And it is a disadvantage for us constantly trying to merge both data together. One thing is RIPE-DB cross-checking between the inetnum object (IP-Management) and the route (routing) object makes it very consistent for the RIPE region. And I considered that an advantage rather than a disadvantage. PS. CW Europe is on a different AS number now but it will merge into AS3561 eventually. > This isnt an ideal solution but it works. The right solution > would be to > establish > distributed route registries and not to mirror each other. > > There is already a RFC out which describes how distributed registries > could work > but i cant find it at the moment, sorry. (Anyone know which > RFC it is?) > Even for a distributed system (like DNS) there is a need for caching (mirrored data) and you still have to put them together at some point.

2 1