May 2023 - db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Using the RIPE Database for IPAM
by denis walker 04 Oct '23

04 Oct '23

Colleagues Do you use the RIPE Database as your IPAM solution? If so, read on.... The RIPE NCC has done a brief review of the recommendations made by the DB Task Force (DBTF). You can find it here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf/initial-analys… There is one point in the summary that I disagree with: One recommendation can be implemented immediately by the RIPE NCC: - 3. Using the RIPE Database as an IPAM solution The recommendation from the DBTF was: "The task force recommends limiting and discouraging the use of the RIPE Database as an enterprise IPAM solution." This has not yet been discussed by the community and there is no consensus on this recommendation. So the RIPE NCC should not be doing anything to implement this recommendation. There are a number of points relating to this. The first BoF held by the DBTF had 46 participants. They had some polls about IPAM: Where do you hold your canonical IP address assignment details? (13 answers) Internal database or IPAM system (5 - 38%) RIPE Database (5 - 38%) Internal database for detailed assignments and RIPE database for allocations (3 - 23%) What should we do about the IPAM use of the RIPE Database? (12 answers) We should discourage it (3-25%) We should tolerate it but provide restrictions and best practices (5-42%) We should promote it and facilitate it (4-33%) During the BoF some comments were also made on this: Shane's comment "IPAM seems to be an important thing" Nathalie said about 50% of people attending training courses over a number of years said they use the RIPE DB for IPAM. Also trainees said open source IPAM solutions often pull data out of the RIPE DB but have no functionality to push data to the RIPE DB. During the presentation by the DBTF in the DB-WG session at RIPE 83 Shane said (on IPAM): "if you had very light requirements for IPAM then maybe it is OK, but it's not really what it's for" "unable to find out if this [response] was based on misunderstanding of the question" "we think there are probably good ways to go forward with that, for example making hooks so that external IPAM solutions can hook into it...that makes sense, there are certainly many commercial vendors that make IPAM products who would be happy to use hooks, there are many ways that third parties could use this but probably not a requirement" So it looks like there are very mixed views on the use of the RIPE Database for IPAM. Some people also expressed surprise that so many people use the database for IPAM. It is clear that we don't actually understand who, how and why people use the database for IPAM. We need a better understanding of the how and why and the number of users doing this before we can make any decision about discouraging or encouraging this use of the database. Even to consider if IPAM should be defined as a purpose of the database. As we are talking about it, maybe now is the time to start this discussion. If you use the RIPE Database as your IPAM solution maybe you can offer some more details. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

5 5

Geofeed purpose
by denis walker 07 Aug '23

07 Aug '23

Colleagues The conversation on deploying geofeed died shortly after RIPE 85. The last comment was from myself asking if anyone was willing to propose some wording for a new purpose covering the use of the RIPE Database for geolocation information. No one proposed any wording. So below I have made a proposal for a new purpose. Your comments are appreciated. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG The RIPE Database contains information for the following purposes: Ensuring the uniqueness of Internet number resource usage through registration of information related to the resources and Registrants Publishing routing policies by network operators (IRR) Facilitating coordination between network operators (network problem resolution, outage notification etc.) Provisioning of Reverse Domain Name System (DNS) and ENUM delegations Providing information about the Registrant and Maintainer of Internet number resources when the resources are suspected of being used for unlawful activities, to parties who are authorised under the law to receive such information. Scientific research into network operations and topology Providing information to parties involved in disputes over Internet number resource registrations to parties who are authorised under the law to receive such information. Providing information about the geolocation usage of Internet number resources.

6 15

Progress on NWI-4
by Wessel Sandkuijl 20 Jul '23

20 Jul '23

Hi, I've reviewed Ed's impact analysis for NWI-4 and his proposal to add a new status value "ALLOCATED-ASSIGNED PA". This will not cover all use cases and it's use will most likely be limited as most people are used to the "ALLOCATED PA" versus "ASSIGNED PA" status values. I would highly prefer the earlier alternative proposal to use a tuple (using both prefix and status) so no new status value is introduced to the RIPE database. Can this be moved forward? Regards, Wessel Sandkuijl

4 4

NWI-14 Authenticating References to Objects
by denis walker 19 Jun '23

19 Jun '23

Colleagues The chairs propose creating NWI-14 for expanding the optional use of the "mnt-ref:" attribute to protect objects from accidental or intentional mis-representation of responsibility. See slide 14 of this presentation for the problem definition: https://ripe78.ripe.net/presentations/129-RIPE78-Operational-Update.pdf We ask the RIPE NCC to add NWI-14 to the list. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

3 4

Sponsored ASNs AccountOwner's in extended delegate file don't move with sponsor
by Ben Cartwright-Cox 15 Jun '23

15 Jun '23

I'm not 100% sure if this is the correct place to report/discuss this quirk I've come across, but db-wg is the closest I have, so here it goes. In (what I call) the RIPE delegate file https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/delegated-ripencc-extended-latest Sponsored ASNs have slightly funny behaviour. For ASNs that are sponsored, the account owner UUID is always the ASN that sponsored the ASN first. If sponsorship is moved, the account owner UUID does not change. However given (as far as I understand) sponsored ASNs are PI resources, surely they should get the same treatment as the IPv4 and IPv6 entries (in that the PI holder has their own accountowner uuid) What do we think? Is this behaviour of being sticky to the original sponsor account UUID a bug? Should sponsored ASNs have their own account UUID? Have I completely misunderstood what any of this file means? I ask most of this because my own system bgp.tools allows you to quickly lookup resources by account, and for my own production ASN: $ curl -s https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/delegated-ripencc-extended-latest | grep 206924 ripencc|GB|asn|206924|1|20170411|allocated|b786bde2-1363-44c5-aec3-5ac65ee325e6 It shows all of the remaining ASNs that were originally registered by the now defunct LIR: https://bgp.tools/rir-owner/b786bde2-1363-44c5-aec3-5ac65ee325e6 Cheers Ben Cartwright-Cox

2 3

NWI update
by denis walker 24 May '23

24 May '23

Colleagues In the past we have done an NWI update as a presentation during the RIPE Meeting. However, as there is usually very little movement on most NWIs, the presentations are not very informative. This time we will present the update as an email and ask for any questions in the AOB at the end of the WG session on Thursday afternoon. NWI-2 Historical queries No comments since RIPE 85 NWI-4 Assigning a full allocation One comment today expressing a preference for the combined primary key (prefix/status) rather than simply changing the status. This allows separate objects for the allocation and the assignment with their own information and references. NWI-12 NRTMv4 In progress, for more details see: https://github.com/mxsasha/nrtmv4/ NWI-13 Geofeed Legal review posted to list last week. The RIPE NCC will discuss internally how to tighten up the wording of the proposed purpose text. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will need to approve the change to the Terms & Conditions to accept the new purpose. Then geofeed should be usable without the previous legal restrictions. NWI-14 Extending use of mnt-ref Implementation in progress by RIPE NCC NWI-16 Using RIPE Database as an IPAM solution No comments since RIPE 85 NWI-15,17,18 Task Force recommendations No comments cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Agenda RIPE86 - Database Working Group - REVISED
by William Sylvester 16 May '23

16 May '23

Here is the revised agenda for the Database Working Group for RIPE86. If you would like to present, have questions, comments, or requested changes please let the chairs know. Best regards, William & Denis DB-WG Chairs A. Introduction - 10 min * Welcome * Scribe * Jabber * Chairs & Succession Planning * Agenda B. Operational Update– 20 mins Edward Shryane, RIPE NCC C. Managing the RIPE DB – 20 mins Denis Walker, Co-Chair DB-WG D. Use Cases of the RIPE Database – 15 mins Maria Stafyla, Co-Chair DB-WG Z. AOB (open discussion)

1 0

Agenda RIPE86 - Database Working Group
by William Sylvester 15 May '23

15 May '23

Below is the agenda for the Database Working Group for RIPE86. If you would like to present, have questions, comments, or requested changes please let the chairs know. Best regards, William & Denis DB-WG Chairs A. Introduction - 10 min * Welcome * Scribe * Jabber * Chairs & Succession Planning * Agenda B. NWI Update – 20 mins Denis Walker, Co-Chair DB-WG C. Operational Update– 20 mins Edward Shryane, RIPE NCC D. Geofeed Discussion – 15 mins Maria Stafyla, Co-Chair DB-WG Z. AOB (open discussion)

2 1

Proposed Service Criticality Form
by Edward Shryane 12 May '23

12 May '23

Dear Colleagues, During RIPE 84 in May, we discussed the Service Criticality Framework. We mentioned that we would like the Database Working Group's input on the criticality rating for the RIPE Database. Thank you to the Co-chairs for asking the working group for input in July with the original form: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2022-July/007527.html Since we have yet to receive any feedback so far, we plan to share our proposed completed form with the working group on Monday, 12 December. We hope that this will invite more input. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

3 4