October 2017 - db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [db-wg] Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October
by Tim Bruijnzeels 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Dear Working Group, Whois release 1.90 has now been deployed to production. Kind regards Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Software Engineering and Senior Technical Officer RIPE NCC > On 27 Sep 2017, at 10:28, Tim Bruijnzeels via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October > Date: 27 September 2017 at 10:26:44 GMT+2 > To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > Dear working group, > > RIPE Database Release 1.90 was deployed to the Release Candidate Environment, last week on 22 September 2017. If no issues are raised, we plan to deploy this version to production on Monday 16 October 2017 > > Release 1.90 introduces the following main features in support of NWI-7 (abuse-c implementation): > > = Allow adding an "abuse-c:" attribute to INET(6)NUM and AUT-NUM objects > = Disallow adding "abuse-c:" to object types other than ROLE, INET(6)NUM and AUT-NUM > > Release 1.90 contains a number of small improvements: > > = Make org-name validation case-sensitive (no longer consider case changes a no-op) > = Support to remove generated AUT-NUM "remarks:" regarding legacy status > > The complete list of other minor issues solved by this release can be found here: > https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/blob/master/changes.txt > > Please let us know if you see any issues with this release in the RC environment. > > Kind regards > > Tim Bruijnzeels > > Assistant Manager Software Engineering and Senior Technical Officer > RIPE NCC > > >

1 0

Re: [db-wg] DB signatures
by Job Snijders 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Thanks Tim!

1 0

Re: [db-wg] DB signatures
by Tim Bruijnzeels 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Dear Aliaksei, working group, The split files, and all other content of the ftp site, are also available on https: https://ftp.ripe.net/ https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ They have been available here for quite a while but I realise that this was not widely announced, nor documented. I will make sure that documentation is updated. The files are generated using a snapshot of data at midnight CEST - but take over 2 hours to complete - because we have to filter out personal data. Because this is resource intense, and because there may be scripts out there running at various times in the day and expecting to retrieve the ‘midnight’ snapshot, I am not keen on increasing the frequency unless it’s clear that there is great demand for this. Dependent on your needs the NRTM service may also be a fit for you: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/nrtm-mirroring Kind regards, Tim Bruijnzeels > On 16 Oct 2017, at 11:30, Horváth Ágoston János via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > From: Horváth Ágoston János <horvath.agoston(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [db-wg] DB signatures > Date: 15 October 2017 at 12:22:03 GMT+2 > To: Aliaksei Sheshka <sheshkaoss(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "db-wg(a)ripe.net >> Database WG" <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > The gzip format already contains checksum. > Signing is a different issue. But the first question one might ask is > why this data is still offered through FTP. Using https would also > make most of the signing requirements obsolete. > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg > <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Aliaksei Sheshka <sheshkaoss(a)gmail.com> >> To: db-wg(a)ripe.net >> Cc: >> Bcc: >> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:01:56 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [db-wg] DB signatures >> I assume time stamps are UTC, ftp shows 10/12/17, 10:12:00 PM, now it is Fri Oct 13 22:57:17 2017 UTC >> I would say 24h+ update for such data is too much. >> Also having signatures / checksums is a standard security measure for any downloads and are very easy to implement. >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:58 PM, denis walker <ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Aliaksei >>> >>> The files are regenerated daily. There are some checks done on the files as part of the generation process, like zero size check or size difference more than some percentage from yesterday. Perhaps the RIPE NCC can comment on the possibility of signing or checksum files? >>> >>> cheers >>> denis >>> co-chair DB WG >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> >>> To: db-wg(a)ripe.net >>> Sent: Friday, 13 October 2017, 19:45 >>> Subject: [db-wg] DB signatures >>> >>> Hello! >>> >>> I would like to know if there is a plan to sign / checksum files located at >>> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ ? >>> Currently there is no mechanism to know if files aren't tampered or corrupted. >>> >>> My second question is how often those files are updated? >>> >>> Thanks!

1 0

Re: [db-wg] DB signatures
by Horváth Ágoston János 15 Oct '17

15 Oct '17

The gzip format already contains checksum. Signing is a different issue. But the first question one might ask is why this data is still offered through FTP. Using https would also make most of the signing requirements obsolete. On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Aliaksei Sheshka <sheshkaoss(a)gmail.com> > To: db-wg(a)ripe.net > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:01:56 -0400 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] DB signatures > I assume time stamps are UTC, ftp shows 10/12/17, 10:12:00 PM, now it is Fri Oct 13 22:57:17 2017 UTC > I would say 24h+ update for such data is too much. > Also having signatures / checksums is a standard security measure for any downloads and are very easy to implement. > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:58 PM, denis walker <ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Hi Aliaksei >> >> The files are regenerated daily. There are some checks done on the files as part of the generation process, like zero size check or size difference more than some percentage from yesterday. Perhaps the RIPE NCC can comment on the possibility of signing or checksum files? >> >> cheers >> denis >> co-chair DB WG >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> >> To: db-wg(a)ripe.net >> Sent: Friday, 13 October 2017, 19:45 >> Subject: [db-wg] DB signatures >> >> Hello! >> >> I would like to know if there is a plan to sign / checksum files located at >> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ ? >> Currently there is no mechanism to know if files aren't tampered or corrupted. >> >> My second question is how often those files are updated? >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> > >

1 0

violation of DB T&C by DB-WG co-chair, is it acceptable?
by Elvis Daniel Velea 14 Oct '17

14 Oct '17

Dear RIPE NCC, can you please present a report showing how many LIRs have reported RIPE DB T&C violations? How many were resolved and what was the outcome? - Specifically, how many times has the RIPE NCC taken any action other than a warning message. Dear DB-WG, should we accept that one of the chairs of this WG is purposely violating the T&Cs of the RIPE DB? Please see below one of the e-mails received from David, the RIPE DB-WG co-chair, by a RIPE NCC member named /<company>/. (I'd like to mention that /<company>/ has never had a business relationship with Larus Cloud Service Limited, has never subscribed to any mailing list and has never requested the message below - which I find to be spam as it was never solicited). regards, elvis From: Larus Team <vendors(a)laruscloudservice.net> Subject: Unused IPv4 space of /<company>/ Dear Colleagues, We are contacting you regarding potential unused IPv4 address currently registered to your organisation /<company>/. Organisations like yours have in the past received address IPv4 space, it sometimes remains unused after changes to networks. Based on the available information it appears that your organisation is currently holding IPv4 space that appears unused or underutilised. We would like to offer you the possibility to capitalise on these addresses, we can assist you in either finding organisation to permanently transfer (sell) towards, or assist you in finding and forging long term relationships with some of our clients by leasing the unused space to them, generating a long-term income. We are a company based in Hong Kong, our CEO Heng Lu, has over ten years’ experience in managing Internet resources across the globe. Our IP manager David Hilario previously worked for the RIPE NCC one of the five RIR and as such has an intricate knowledge of the policies in the RIR policies especially when it comes to transfers and leasing the address space. We have clients lined up waiting for permanent transfers or long-term lease, so we can fulfil any of your requirements. We offer clients with available IP space a 3 months exclusivity contract. based on your requirements, we will match our waiting list clients with your criteria so that your IP space can be capitalise as soon as possible at the best possible rate. Please note that if you are leasing out your address space, we will offer it on a minimum of yearly basis with advance payment from our clients. Please find attached to this email our NDA to be filled in from your side and returned to us before we can proceed any further in our cooperation in regard to these transfers or long-term lease. We can lease and sell IP space to and from ARIN (North America) APNIC (Asia Pacific) and RIPE NCC (Europe, Middle East and parts of Central Asia). Kind Regards, David Hilario IP Manager Larus Cloud Service Limited p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784 f: +852 29888068 a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.net e: d.hilario(a)outsideheaven.com Larus Team www.laruscloudservice.net <http://sctrack.mail.laruscloudservice.net/track/click/eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjogNDE4M…>

4 3

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Sascha Luck [ml] 14 Oct '17

14 Oct '17

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 02:46:54PM +0100, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote: >Job Snijders wrote: >> I think this touches upon an incredibly important question: how do we >> distinguish between garbage and properly authenticated "route:" >> objects covering RIPE-managed space? > >and more to the point: are there good reasons and community support for >continuing not to distinguish between the two. Well, distinguishing in the irrdb is one thing, but how would you distinguish between them in RealLife(tm)? It's not like you can not route/accept a cross-RIR route: object (at least not without Breaking The Internet) Also, what would the distinguisher be for eg. a route: with prefix from RIPE and ASN from ARIN? RIPE-PARTIALLY-AUTHENTICATED? cheers, Sascha Luck

3 2

Re: Geoloc Object
by Erik Bais - A2B Internet 14 Oct '17

14 Oct '17

Hi Milad, If you can share the range (can be off-list if you prever) and the desired geo loc. I’ll be more than happy to assist. We fix these kind of things for customers a lot .. Regards, Erik Bais Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > Op 14 okt. 2017 om 11:02 heeft Milad Afshar <afshar.milad89(a)gmail.com> het volgende geschreven: > > Hi Folks, > I hope this email finds you well. > I have problem on some of my IP ranges location showing in RIPEstat,I would like to know that does the "geoloc" object in RIPE Database help the geolocation database providers(Maxmind and etc.) to find the correct location of IP Ranges? > Many thanks. > Milad Afshari >

1 0

Geoloc Object
by Milad Afshar 14 Oct '17

14 Oct '17

Hi Folks, I hope this email finds you well. I have problem on some of my IP ranges location showing in RIPEstat,I would like to know that does the "geoloc" object in RIPE Database help the geolocation database providers(Maxmind and etc.) to find the correct location of IP Ranges? Many thanks. Milad Afshari

1 0

Re: [db-wg] DB signatures
by denis walker 14 Oct '17

14 Oct '17

Hi Aliaksei The files are regenerated daily. There are some checks done on the files as part of the generation process, like zero size check or size difference more than some percentage from yesterday. Perhaps the RIPE NCC can comment on the possibility of signing or checksum files? cheersdenisco-chair DB WG From: Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> To: db-wg(a)ripe.net Sent: Friday, 13 October 2017, 19:45 Subject: [db-wg] DB signatures Hello! I would like to know if there is a plan to sign / checksum files located at ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ ? Currently there is no mechanism to know if files aren't tampered or corrupted. My second question is how often those files are updated? Thanks!

2 1

DB signatures
by Aliaksei Sheshka 13 Oct '17

13 Oct '17

Hello! I would like to know if there is a plan to sign / checksum files located at ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ ? Currently there is no mechanism to know if files aren't tampered or corrupted. My second question is how often those files are updated? Thanks!

1 0

Fw: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by denis walker 13 Oct '17

13 Oct '17

Second attempt to get through the mailing system.... ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: denis walker <ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk> To: Sascha Luck [ml] <dbwg(a)c4inet.net> Cc: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, 11 October 2017, 19:40 Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision? Hi Sascha, all I see this as a real possibility for the longer term. But realistically it is not going to help with the situation in the near future. I see some think that RADB is already a 'central DB' whereas others in this thread have said they would not use RADB (don't know it that is for technical, political or reliability issues). Just to throw a wild idea into the pot on this. If we were to look into the possibility of a centralised database, at least for the three RIRs who use a common database root RIPE, APNIC, Afrinic, then to me it makes sense to have a common, public database for operational data not only for routing information but also for number resource information. Then such a common database could do proper authentication. Almost certainly the personal data referenced by the operational data would need to remain in separate regional databases for privacy and data protection reasons. From the point of view of managing globally unique resources it makes perfect sense. But I suspect there would be lots of opposition to such a suggestion for political and self preservation reasons from many directions. Bearing in mind that any such suggestion would takes years from an idea to reality, I don't think we should get too bogged down in discussing this as part of this thread. However, several people have mentioned the idea of proper management of global resources. So perhaps if someone feels the desire to raise the issue in Dubai and formally call for the start of a serious investigation process that could lead to a common operational database, then the ball will at least start rolling.... cheersdenisco-chair DB WG From: Sascha Luck [ml] via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> To: denis walker <ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk> Cc: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, 11 October 2017, 16:21 Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision? On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 02:49:39PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote: > Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects for non RIPE resources? Is an option D: create a central IRRDB with authentication hooks into all RIRs completely out of the question? It certainly sounds like the technologically most elegant answer. Modulo legacy resources, no unauthenticated irrdb objects should then have to exist. The trust root could be shared between the RIRs as is seemingly done with RPKI these days... cheers, Sascha Luck

1 0

Re: [db-wg] RIPE Access Account: Cannot change registered e-mail address back to previously one
by Tim Bruijnzeels 12 Oct '17

12 Oct '17

Dear Christoffer, Unfortunately this is not as easy to implement as one might think. However, we will look into this again and see if we can find a solution for this issue. Kind regards Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Software Engineering RIPE NCC > On 10 Oct 2017, at 21:16, Christoffer Hansen via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > From: Christoffer Hansen via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [db-wg] RIPE Access Account: Cannot change registered e-mail address back to previously one > To: RIPE Database Working Group <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > Reply-To: Christoffer Hansen <netravnen(a)gmail.com> > > > > From: Christoffer Hansen <netravnen(a)gmail.com> > Subject: RIPE Access Account: Cannot change registered e-mail address back to previously one > Date: 10 October 2017 at 19:52:50 GMT+2 > To: RIPE Database Working Group <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > RIPE Database Working Group <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > Am I the only one who have previously wondered about the following issue... (?) > > 1. Register a RIPE Access Account with [account_1(a)example.com] > 2. is changed to [account_2(a)example.com] > 3. later tries to change registered RIPE Access Account e-mail back to [account_1(a)example.com]. > > I'am not allowed to do this. > > RIPE NCC's website simply does *not* allow me to do this. > > Refer to the following pictures for clarification. > > > Changing the e-mail address back to [account_1(a)example.com] > <2017-10-10 19_00_24-RIPE NCC Access — RIPE Network Coordination Centre.png> > × > > > > Creating a new RIPE Access Account for [account_1(a)example.com] > <2017-10-10 19_03_18-RIPE NCC Access — RIPE Network Coordination Centre.png> > × > > > > Trying the forgotten password function for [account_1(a)example.com] > <2017-10-10 19_04_28-RIPE NCC Access — RIPE Network Coordination Centre.png> > × > > > > > Regards, > Christoffer Hansen. > gpg: c8b3 82a8 a1cd cdb7 71fe b24c c654 948f da86 becd > > > >

2 4

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by George Michaelson 12 Oct '17

12 Oct '17

I think its time to stop disrespecting external source of authority on this. You argued for a position based on the desire of RIPE entities needing to import foreign objects into their RPSL But you did not address the far larger body of people who are exposed to risks from the public maintainer and foreign object model, which we know is causing problems. I have presented three times on this at RIPE meetings in Dublin, Bucharest and Amsterdam pointing out that APNIC helpdesk and hostmaster are mediating calls from members who are concerned at how their ASN wound up in the RIPE RPSL. I also spoke recently at the APNIC services meeting to this, calling for a bit more dialogue on what we want to do. Lets build an ecology which can handle disparate sources, and stop demanding a bogus security model. The open maintainer is yesterdays man. a) Move the non-local stuff to another source and be explicit its an import to allow people to discriminate. We should do this irrespective of any other work: its not in RIPE data management, its not part of RIPE authoritative statements. A declaration of intent through an open maintainer is functionally indistinguishable from a lie. b) We can think about ROA. There is no permission from the origin-as to be referred to in a ROA, and we know that people regard the ROA as semantically in the same space as the route: object which demands the aut-num import. So we have a clear signal that routing praxis is now not that concerned with ASN authority to be cited in origin-AS. If you remove the dependency on aut-num maintainer, you will removed the dependency on foreign object import. The validity of authority over the aut-num can be understood from its appropriate RIR or NIR declaration, as an imported source. -George On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Job Snijders <job(a)instituut.net> > To: "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3011(a)gmail.com>, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <dbwg(a)c4inet.net> > Cc: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net>, denis walker <ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk> > Bcc: > Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:06:04 +0000 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision? > > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 at 16:52, Sascha Luck [ml] via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:30:06AM -0300, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: >> >IMHO, any idea that starts with “Let´s create a central X” is doomed from the start. >> > >> >We must think along other lines. >> >> Maybe "central" was the wrong word to use. Think a DB that every >> RIR provides a copy of and authenticates the bits that "belong" >> to it. This would even be necessary to avoid compromise. >> One could pick the copy to use for filter generation or even >> query them all and implement a majority decision if there are >> discrepancies. >> Of course it would require all RIRs to use the same RPSL format >> but that appears more of a political than a technical problem. > > > > We already have that “central IRR” in the form of the likes of the RADB Whois server. RIPE’s data is the odd one out here. > > RIPE is the _only_ IRR source where we cannot differentiate between authenticated data and non-authenticated data. > > For all other sources we know that either the route objects have been authenticated against the inetnum’s specified maintainer (APNIC, AFRINIC, JPIRR) or is entirely without such verification (ARIN, NTTCOM, ALTDB, RADB itself, etc). > > The value of the data in the RIPE DB would significantly increase if this difference is shown. > > Kind regards, > > Job > >

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Job Snijders 11 Oct '17

11 Oct '17

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 at 16:52, Sascha Luck [ml] via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:30:06AM -0300, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: > >IMHO, any idea that starts with “Let´s create a central X” is doomed from > the start. > > > >We must think along other lines. > > Maybe "central" was the wrong word to use. Think a DB that every > RIR provides a copy of and authenticates the bits that "belong" > to it. This would even be necessary to avoid compromise. > One could pick the copy to use for filter generation or even > query them all and implement a majority decision if there are > discrepancies. > Of course it would require all RIRs to use the same RPSL format > but that appears more of a political than a technical problem. We already have that “central IRR” in the form of the likes of the RADB Whois server. RIPE’s data is the odd one out here. RIPE is the _only_ IRR source where we cannot differentiate between authenticated data and non-authenticated data. For all other sources we know that either the route objects have been authenticated against the inetnum’s specified maintainer (APNIC, AFRINIC, JPIRR) or is entirely without such verification (ARIN, NTTCOM, ALTDB, RADB itself, etc). The value of the data in the RIPE DB would significantly increase if this difference is shown. Kind regards, Job >

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Carlos M. Martinez 11 Oct '17

11 Oct '17

IMHO, any idea that starts with “Let´s create a central X” is doomed from the start. We must think along other lines. /Carlos On 11 Oct 2017, at 11:21, Sascha Luck [ml] via db-wg wrote: > From: Sascha Luck [ml] <dbwg(a)c4inet.net> > > To: denis walker <ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk> > > Cc: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - > final decision? > > Date: October 11, 2017 at 11:21 AM > > > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 02:49:39PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg > wrote: > > >> Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects >> for non RIPE resources? > > > Is an option D: create a central IRRDB with authentication hooks > into all RIRs completely out of the question? It certainly sounds > like the technologically most elegant answer. Modulo legacy > resources, no unauthenticated irrdb objects should then have to > exist. The trust root could be shared between the RIRs as is > seemingly done with RPKI these days... > > cheers, > Sascha Luck

2 1

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Nick Hilliard 11 Oct '17

11 Oct '17

Sascha Luck [ml] via db-wg wrote: > Not allowing > "foreign" resources in the ripedb denies the reality that there > will always be RIPE-allocated prefixes originated from > non-RIPE-assigned ASNs and vice versa. Not true - you can easily run a whois query on whois.radb.net specifying multiple sources, including RIPE: % bgpq3 -S RIPE,APNIC,LACNIC AS-FOO In fact, there is no way of writing a functioning irrdb querier which can't handle specifying arbitrary irrdb source: options on a per-ASN basis. Nick

2 2

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Sascha Luck [ml] 11 Oct '17

11 Oct '17

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 02:49:39PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote: > Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects for non RIPE resources? Is an option D: create a central IRRDB with authentication hooks into all RIRs completely out of the question? It certainly sounds like the technologically most elegant answer. Modulo legacy resources, no unauthenticated irrdb objects should then have to exist. The trust root could be shared between the RIRs as is seemingly done with RPKI these days... cheers, Sascha Luck

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Job Snijders 11 Oct '17

11 Oct '17

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Nick Hilliard via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> > To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > Cc: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:16:41 +0100 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision? > Randy Bush via db-wg wrote: >>> > Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects >>> > for non RIPE resources? >> >> yes > > then how can we use the traditional irrdb to distinguish between address > blocks which have been authenticated by the ripe ncc and those which > have not. > > Nick I think this touches upon an incredibly important question: how do we distinguish between garbage and properly authenticated "route:" objects covering RIPE-managed space? It seems it would be low hanging fruit to use the "source:" tag to distinguish between objects that are authenticated and non-authenticated by using "source: RIPE" and "source: RIPE-NONAUTH". The above described small step bridges the needs to many who expressed opposing views in this thread: some want to be able to register anything in the RIPE DB and some want it to be pristine and purge all non-RIPE-managed space from the IRR DB. By decorating the two types of data with the appropriate "source:" attribute I think we are meeting in the middle. By using a different "source:" attribute for RIPE vs non-RIPE space it becomes easier for operators to cherry pick which data they want to use in the creation of their routing security filters. Should the group decide to proceed with option A or C (between which I don't see a difference), at the very least it should be visible to my tooling which objects represent what type of data. Kind regards, Job

2 1

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Horváth Ágoston János 11 Oct '17

11 Oct '17

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Daniel Shaw via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > On 11/10/2017, 14:09, Job Snijders via db-wg typed: >> You >> as network operator can easily poll the APNIC or AFRINIC database. >> There are even a number of "IRR aggregation services" such as NTTCOM >> and RADB which mirror a ton of IRRs for your querying convenience. > > Without commenting on the debate either way (in this mail, at this time), just a quick technical note: In fact, the RIPE DB mirrors the AFRINIC IRR data, so you at least as far as AFRINIC goes, provided there is IRR data in the AFRINIC DB, you can get it by querying the RIPE DB with the correct 'source:' Correct. But if RIPE allows the creation of objects for which it has no authority over, what are users supposed to do when they see the contradicting data coming from RIPE and AFRINIC (to follow your example)? That's also the reason for the existence of the --resource query flag. Question is, why would we keep data that is not authoritative (and not mirror) in the RIPE DB? Agoston On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Daniel Shaw via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Daniel Shaw <daniel(a)afrinic.net> > To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:27:56 +0400 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision? > On 11/10/2017, 14:09, Job Snijders via db-wg typed: >> You >> as network operator can easily poll the APNIC or AFRINIC database. >> There are even a number of "IRR aggregation services" such as NTTCOM >> and RADB which mirror a ton of IRRs for your querying convenience. > > Without commenting on the debate either way (in this mail, at this time), just a quick technical note: In fact, the RIPE DB mirrors the AFRINIC IRR data, so you at least as far as AFRINIC goes, provided there is IRR data in the AFRINIC DB, you can get it by querying the RIPE DB with the correct 'source:' > > Cheers, > Daniel > > >

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Daniel Shaw 11 Oct '17

11 Oct '17

On 11/10/2017, 14:09, Job Snijders via db-wg typed: > You > as network operator can easily poll the APNIC or AFRINIC database. > There are even a number of "IRR aggregation services" such as NTTCOM > and RADB which mirror a ton of IRRs for your querying convenience. Without commenting on the debate either way (in this mail, at this time), just a quick technical note: In fact, the RIPE DB mirrors the AFRINIC IRR data, so you at least as far as AFRINIC goes, provided there is IRR data in the AFRINIC DB, you can get it by querying the RIPE DB with the correct 'source:' Cheers, Daniel

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Job Snijders 11 Oct '17

11 Oct '17

Hi Randy, On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Randy Bush via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> > To: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> > Cc: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:26:34 +0900 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision? >>>>> Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects >>>>> for non RIPE resources? >>> >>> yes >> >> then how can we use the traditional irrdb to distinguish between address >> blocks which have been authenticated by the ripe ncc and those which >> have not. > > as you said, it would be good to have an strongly authenticated > ownership which could assert routing. try the rpki; works across > all regions. You are right, RPKI does fit the bill in a number of ways, and I look forward to the operators taking advantage of the good bits. However this does not preclude the RIPE community from improving the quality of another commonly used source: IRR. As you know there are only 2 or 3 networks on this planet using RPKI in their operations, while I can point at many more networks using IRR to build their whitelists for provisioning. As you know there is a feature gap between IRR and RPKI. RPKI doesn't have an "AS-SET"-like replacement, and not all the RPKI TALs are as easy to obtain as their equivalent IRR data. > a least it's a more credible argument than thinking encouraging ipv4 > run-out will increase ipv6, as opposed to nat, uptake. < dripping > sarcasm > OK, this seems off topic. Kind regards, Job

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Job Snijders 11 Oct '17

11 Oct '17

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Piotr Strzyzewski via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > From: Piotr Strzyzewski <Piotr.Strzyzewski(a)polsl.pl> > To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:50:45 +0200 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision? > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:43:13PM +0200, Gert Doering via db-wg wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:48:43PM +0200, denis walker via db-wg wrote: >> > Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects for non RIPE resources? >> >> I wonder if this is the right question to ask, or we should step back >> and ask the question >> >> what can we do to provide a secure routing registry where people >> can document "this prefix will be announced by that AS" in a way >> that is a) strongly authenticated (= only the current holder of the >> address space can create such a route: object), and b) easy to use >> for people building filters (= not having to walk 5 different IRRDBs >> to find the set of prefixes announced by a possible customer)? >> >> instead? A, B or C may be a consequence of this. >> >> >> In any case, given that we have no proper global registry, and we have >> lots of cross-region routes ("addresses from RIR A, AS number from RIR B"), >> we need to find a way to document these properly. >> >> From a user perspective, I like to have all route: objects for my customers >> in a single place (RIPE BD, that is), so for me, "A" would be most convenient >> - but we need to add some sort of cross-RIR authentication layer. > > +1 > > Piotr Hi Piotr, Gert, Group, It seems strange to allow "route:' objects covering APNIC- or AFRINIC-managed space in the RIPE DB, just for your "convenience". You as network operator can easily poll the APNIC or AFRINIC database. There are even a number of "IRR aggregation services" such as NTTCOM and RADB which mirror a ton of IRRs for your querying convenience. The "convenience" argument seems a slippery slope: as your customer base grows, you'll be encouraging more and more non-RIPE space to end up in the RIPE database (even though it could be in an authenticated source such as APNIC). Why? To what benefit? Why would you be supportive of the continuation of type of pollution? Isn't a simpler solution to drop the "origin:" attribute verification and only authenticate against the "inetnum:" authentication hierarchy? This way an ARIN-managed ASN can easily register RIPE-managed space in the RIPE database and it would be strongly authentication against the "inetnum:" I think that RIPE managed space belongs in the RIPE database, however non-RIPE-managed space (APNIC, AFRINIC, ARIN, LACNIC, chunks of legacy) have no place here since we cannot authenticate them. Kind regards, Job

1 0

RIPE Access Account: Cannot change registered e-mail address back to previously one
by Christoffer Hansen 10 Oct '17

10 Oct '17

RIPE Database Working Group <db-wg(a)ripe.net> Am I the only one who have previously wondered about the following issue... (?) 1. Register a RIPE Access Account with [account_1(a)example.com] 2. is changed to [account_2(a)example.com] 3. later tries to change registered RIPE Access Account e-mail back to [ account_1(a)example.com]. I'am not allowed to do this. RIPE NCC's website simply does *not* allow me to do this. Refer to the following pictures for clarification. *Changing the e-mail address back to [account_1(a)example.com <account_1(a)example.com>]* *× * *Creating a new RIPE Access Account for [account_1(a)example.com <account_1(a)example.com>]* *× Trying the forgotten password function for [account_1(a)example.com <account_1(a)example.com>]* *× * Regards, Christoffer Hansen. gpg: c8b3 82a8 a1cd cdb7 71fe b24c c654 948f da86 becd

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Piotr Strzyzewski 10 Oct '17

10 Oct '17

On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:43:13PM +0200, Gert Doering via db-wg wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:48:43PM +0200, denis walker via db-wg wrote: > > Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects for non RIPE resources? > > I wonder if this is the right question to ask, or we should step back > and ask the question > > what can we do to provide a secure routing registry where people > can document "this prefix will be announced by that AS" in a way > that is a) strongly authenticated (= only the current holder of the > address space can create such a route: object), and b) easy to use > for people building filters (= not having to walk 5 different IRRDBs > to find the set of prefixes announced by a possible customer)? > > instead? A, B or C may be a consequence of this. > > > In any case, given that we have no proper global registry, and we have > lots of cross-region routes ("addresses from RIR A, AS number from RIR B"), > we need to find a way to document these properly. > > From a user perspective, I like to have all route: objects for my customers > in a single place (RIPE BD, that is), so for me, "A" would be most convenient > - but we need to add some sort of cross-RIR authentication layer. +1 Piotr -- Piotr Strzyżewski Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre Gliwice, Poland

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Nick Hilliard 10 Oct '17

10 Oct '17

Randy Bush via db-wg wrote: >> > Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects >> > for non RIPE resources? > > yes then how can we use the traditional irrdb to distinguish between address blocks which have been authenticated by the ripe ncc and those which have not. Nick

2 1