May 2024 - db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Changes to the RIPE Database Acceptable Use Policy and Daily Limit Accounting
by Edward Shryane 07 Aug '24

07 Aug '24

Dear colleagues, We would like to share some changes to the RIPE Database Acceptable Use Policy and how we implement the daily limit. The Database team will enable these changes from this Thursday, 16 May 2024 onwards. The RIPE NCC Executive Board approved amendments to the "RIPE Database Acceptable Use Policy" (AUP) in March this year, allowing for an additional method of accounting for RIPE Database queries containing personal data. With this method, the count will be based per user, rather than per IP address, for logged-in users. This allows multiple users to share the same public IP address but be accounted for separately. Previously, an office behind a NAT, for example, would get blocked as all users shared the same query limit. This will no longer be the case, as we will count the number of queries per user based on their RIPE NCC Access (single sign-on) accounts, if they are logged in. For users who are not logged in to RIPE NCC Access accounts, the queries will be counted based on IP addresses. Additionally, we found that the daily limit configured in Whois was inconsistent with the AUP. Along with the other changes described above, we will enforce the daily query limit in Whois in line with the Acceptable Use Policy: * Number of personal data sets returned in queries from an IP address – 1,000 per 24 hours * Number of personal data sets returned in queries from a RIPE NCC Access (SSO) account – 1,000 per 24 hours Users who query for personal data above the daily limit will receive the message below explaining what has happened and what to do next: Access from your host has been temporarily denied. For more information, see: https://apps.db.ripe.net/docs/FAQ/#why-did-i-receive-an-error-201-access-de… The minutes from the March meeting of the RIPE NCC Executive Board are available at: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2024/174th-executive-… The resolution amending the RIPE Database Acceptable Use Policy is under section 4.6. The updated RIPE Database Acceptable Use Policy is available on our website: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-data… Regards, Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

8 26

Phone number requirement for person objects
by Cynthia Revström 06 Aug '24

06 Aug '24

Hi, In the DB-WG interim session I mentioned that there's currently a discrepancy between person objects and role objects with regards to contact information. More specifically, person objects currently require a phone number while role objects require an email address. I think we should try to bring person objects more in line with role objects by removing the phone number requirement. Ideally I would want it to be mandatory to have either a phone number or an email address in order to not lose any flexibility but I'm not sure if that is possible. During the session I asked if anyone was opposed to the idea and no one said they were so I would assume that this is relatively uncontroversial but please let me know what you think. -Cynthia

4 6

Proposal to allow non-ASCII characters in "org-name:", "person:" and "role:" attributes
by Edward Shryane 28 May '24

28 May '24

Dear colleagues, Currently the RIPE database only allows a subset of ASCII characters in the "org-name:", "person:" and "role:" attributes, for a few reasons including: * These attributes are also a look-up key and the Whois protocol does not allow specifying character sets in queries. * RPSL names are ASCII according to RFC2622 * Using a normalised name makes the object easier to query * Reading a normalised name is easier to interpret However there are some drawbacks to forcing names to only use a subset of ASCII characters: * Organisations, roles and persons cannot use their actual name if it includes characters outside this subset. * Normalisation is not standard, but is an interpretation done by each maintainer, e.g. characters could be excluded or converted in different ways. Since we support the Latin-1 character set in the RIPE database, I propose we also allow non-ASCII Latin-1 characters in these attributes. Querying for a name can be done either using the latin-1 characters (proposed) or a normalised, ASCII representation (currently). The normalised version will be generated by Whois and stored in a database index for querying. The primary key will also be generated from the normalised version. Please let me know your feedback. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC --- Whois attribute verbose description (copied from the help text). org-name -------- Specifies the name of the organisation that this organisation object represents in the RIPE Database. This is an ASCII-only text attribute. The restriction is because this attribute is a look-up key and the whois protocol does not allow specifying character sets in queries. The user can put the name of the organisation in non-ASCII character sets in the "descr:" attribute if required. A list of 1 to 30 words separated by white space. A word is made up of ASCII alphanumeric characters and additionally: ][)(._"*@,&:!'`+/- A word may have up to 64 characters and is not case sensitive. Each word can have any combination of the above characters with no restriction on the start or end of a word. person ------ Specifies the full name of an administrative, technical or zone contact person for other objects in the database. It should contain 2 to 10 words. A word is made up of ASCII alphanumeric characters and additionally: .`'_- The first word should begin with a letter. At least one other word should also begin with a letter. Max 64 characters can be used in each word. role ---- Specifies the full name of a role entity, e.g. RIPE DBM. A list of 1 to 30 words separated by white space. A word is made up of ASCII alphanumeric characters and additionally: ][)(._"*@,&:!'`+/- A word may have up to 64 characters and is not case sensitive. Each word can have any combination of the above characters with no restriction on the start or end of a word.

9 17

Historical data on deleted objects
by Yang Yu 27 May '24

27 May '24

Hi, According to https://apps.db.ripe.net/docs/Types-of-Queries/Historical-Queries/ , historical query doesn't return data on deleted objects. This behavior makes it difficult to distinguish whether a resource was squatted on / analyze history associated with abuse on the resource. And it is not consistent with other RIR's whowas behavior. Currently on RIPE whowas UI unallocated and deleted objects look exactly the same. https://stat.ripe.net/widget/historical-whois#w.resource=as199256 Last time the discussion came up appears to be https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2013-November/004195.html Can history support for deleted objects get implemented? Thanks. Yang

3 5

Preferred names in the database
by Harry Cross 22 May '24

22 May '24

Dear all (copying this to both the Diversity list and the Database list), I hope you’re having a wonderful weekend and recovering from Rome. I’d like to begin thinking about a proposal for preferred names in the database/on resources. Some may have noticed this week (and for a bit prior), I have begun going by Harri instead of Harry. At the moment there is no correct way for me to represent this in the database, as an LIR the details have to match my legal name. I may think about going through the legal processes to change this soon (albeit in the UK this is easier than a lot of places). I know a few people hold their resources under a shell company for this purpose, (e.g I could incorporate Harri Cross Limited to hold the resources and be in the database). This applies to end users who hold PI or ASNs alongside LIRs. It would be good for us to think about a way for these preferred names (and pronouns?) to be shown in the database alongside the process for changing the name of an end user. I know the preferred way a lot of people in this situation would like this to be handled is to totally mask the legal name in the database. The NCC could still validate legal names to know who they are working with - and we will need some compromise here I suspect. A complete lack of verification is of course a bad thing. I have experienced talking to the NCC when handling end users in these situations who have legally name changed and the process seems to be incredibly hard with the lack of understanding on documentation for name changes. Responses from the Registry have included “How can we be sure that <oldName> and <newName> are not identical twins?” (Which in my mind, is rather disrespectful). I also have another name change in process that is being stonewalled by a lack of understanding of documents in different jurisdictions for this. Kind Regards, Harri Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

3 2

RIPE 88 chair selection
by David Tatlisu 21 May '24

21 May '24

Dear colleagues, This is a brief reminder that the DB WG co-chair selection will happen at the Database Working Group session on Thursday. Please have your personal Meetecho link ready. We planned a time slot to discuss the recent changes in the chair selection process, as there has been a lot of discussion between the chairs. Kind regards, David RIPE DB WG co-chair

1 0

Whois Release 1.112
by Edward Shryane 21 May '24

21 May '24

Dear colleagues, RIPE Database release 1.112 has been deployed to the Release Candidate environment for testing. We plan to deploy to production on Thursday 16th May. The 1.112 release has the following main changes: * NWI-4: Add ALLOCATED-ASSIGNED PA inetnum status (#1432) * Set Charset Flag (#1450) * Don't allow "mnt-lower" on assignments (#1452) * Fixed Syncupdates HELP Bug (#1453) * RDAP Link Title is a String not List (#1445) * Route ROA checker (#1416) * Allow inverse query for sponsoring-org from all addresses (#1431) * Return 404 on invalid NRTMv4 notification file path (#1422) The release notes are on the website: https://rc.db.ripe.net/docs/Release-Notes/#ripe-database-release-1-112 More information on the Release Candidate environment can be found on our website: https://apps.db.ripe.net/docs/Release-Notes/ The data in the RC environment is a dummified copy of production from 30th April. Please let us know if you find any issues with this release in the RC environment. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

2 5

Agenda RIPE88 - Database Working Group [REVISED]
by William Sylvester 17 May '24

17 May '24

All, Here is the revised agenda for the Database Working Group for RIPE88. If you would like to present, have questions, comments, or requested changes please let the chairs know. Best regards, William, Denis, & David DB-WG Chairs A. Introduction - 15 min * Welcome * Scribe * Agenda B. Operational Update– 20 mins Edward Shryane, RIPE NCC C. Adding Contact Methods in Whois & RDAP – 15 mins, Cynthia Revström, Dmitry Kohmanyuk, Leo Vegoda C. NWI Review – 15 mins, WG Chairs D. WG Discussion – 25 mins, WG Chairs Z. AOB (open discussion)

1 0

Update to RIPE Database Terms & Conditions
by denis walker 17 May '24

17 May '24

Colleagues In the Impact Analysis (IA) for 2023-04, the RIPE NCC legal team expressed rules for entering personal data into the RIPE Database that are quite different to our previous understanding. This legal IA was relied on heavily by the proposers of 2023-04 and constantly referred to by them during the policy discussions. Based on the discussions and the IA, the chairs of the AP-WG have now approved the proposal 2023-04. We MUST now update the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions to reflect this new understanding on personal data. In the IA the legal team said this: "Inserting any personal data in the RIPE Database must be in compliance with the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions, even when it relates to the contact details of the member’s own contact person(s). In particular, before anyone updates the RIPE Database with personal data, they must obtain the contact person’s informed and expressed consent and ensure this data is kept accurate and up-to-date." Article 6.3 of the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions currently says: "The Maintainer who enters personal data into the RIPE Database has a responsibility to inform the individual to whom the data pertains and to obtain their explicit consent for the entry in the public RIPE Database if required by law." This article does not accurately reflect the statement in the IA by the legal team. The text "if required by law." must be removed. This suggests that some personal data may not need the 'contact person’s informed and expressed consent'. The IA makes it clear that all personal data entered into the RIPE Database must have the 'contact person’s informed and expressed consent'. There are no exceptions or caveats to this consent. Also the responsibility must not be restricted to the 'Maintainer'. ANYONE has the capability to enter personal data into the RIPE Database. This personal data can then be referenced by a Maintainer of resource data. I would suggest Article 6.3 says something like this: "Anyone who updates the RIPE Database with personal data must obtain the contact person’s informed and expressed consent to enter their personal details into a global, freely accessible, public database. This consent cannot be subject to any conditions. If the consent is withdrawn, the personal data must be removed from the RIPE Database in a reasonable time frame. The personal data must be kept accurate and up-to-date. The right to use some Internet resources requires a consenting contact. If no such contact person is available, the right to use some Internet resources may be revoked." This is a clear and honest statement that fully reflects the IA understanding of the use of personal data in the RIPE Database. I would like to ask the RIPE NCC legal team to make arrangements for this update to the Terms and Conditions. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG ======================================================== DISCLAIMER Everything I said above is my personal, professional opinion. It is what I believe to be honest and true to the best of my knowledge. No one in this industry pays me anything. I have nothing to gain or lose by any decision. I push for what I believe is for the good of the Internet, in some small way. Nothing I say is ever intended to be offensive or a personal attack. Even if I strongly disagree with you or question your motives. Politicians question each other's motives all the time. RIPE discussion is often as much about politics and self interest as it is technical. I have a style of writing that some may not be familiar with, others sometimes use it against me. I also have OCD. It makes me see the world slightly differently to others. It drives my mind's obsessive need for detail. I can not change the way I express my detailed opinions. People may choose how to interpret them. ========================================================

2 5

Unintended consequences of 2023-04
by denis walker 15 May '24

15 May '24

Colleagues The proposers of 2023-04 assured the community that their motivation was purely to provide aggregation, an optional, minor, inconsequential feature that did not change anything else. So if their minds were focused purely on aggregation, as they have told us and we must accept that without question, then it is reasonable to expect that they put a lot of effort into getting all the details and implications of aggregation correct. Unfortunately they seem to have missed quite a lot of details and consequences. Nothing much was said throughout the whole discussion, nor in the policy proposal itself, about where AGGREGATED-BY-LIR fits in relation to other status values. Nothing was said about the semantics of the RIPE Database. So, as it has not been explicitly stated what types of address space can be created more specific to an aggregation, we can have partitions, sub-allocations and assignments. The assignments can either be directly under the aggregation or from any of the multiple, same level or hierarchical levels of sub-allocations. There can be quite a complex structure of address space more specific to an aggregation, but you may never know because none of it needs to be documented in the RIPE Database. The boundaries of aggregations have not been defined. So they can overlap the boundaries of assignments that do not have objects in the database. If objects are created in the database, the software will not allow any overlapping objects to be created. Objects must be fully contained within the boundaries of a less specific object. But now that objects do not need to be created and they are not of a fixed size, you can do whatever you want. This can be by mistake or intentional. So resource holders can now delete all assignments from an allocation and create two equal sized aggregation objects. If the boundaries of the aggregations overlap the existing assignments it doesn't matter as long as you delete the assignment objects first. Nothing prohibits the creation of sub-allocations within an aggregation. The definition simply says "This address space has been assigned...". It does not state that the assignment must be only one level more specific to the aggregation. So you can create as complex a structure as you wish with multiple sub-allocations in a hierarchy and multiple sub-allocations on the same level within the hierarchy, as long as it ends with an assignment. Then you have satisfied the condition that "This address space has been assigned". You think that is bad...it gets worse... Previously it was not permitted to sub-assign. So you could not create an assignment more specific to an existing assignment. Now this is permitted. The policy says: "The creation of an inetnum object with a status of "ASSIGNED PA" or "ASSIGNED PI" is only possible if there is no less specific or more specific inetnum object with an "ASSIGNED" status." How many times have I said "words matter"!!! And still no one listens. This rule relates to 'objects' in the RIPE Database. It does NOT refer to 'assignments'. Previously it meant the same as an assignment could only exist if there was an assignment 'object' in the database. Now we do not need to create assignment objects in the database. Now you can create hierarchies of multiple assignments as deep as you like, provided no more than one of those assignments is represented in the database by an assignment object. Now some will say that we all 'know what it means' and people will respect the 'spirit' of the policy. IPv4 runout proved that 'spirit' and 'intent' are meaningless. All that matters is what is actually written in the policy and how those words can be literally interpreted. Before runout, the 'intent' was to keep the last bits of IPv4 for new entrants into the industry who intended to provide LIR services and needed that little bit of IPv4 for their infrastructure. That intent was never written into the policy, so it was heavily ignored by everyone. Existing members, financial investors and the RIPE NCC. It turned into a land grab for free address space for profit. So the only thing that matters is the actual words in the policy. Sub-assignment to any level is now permitted. You think that is bad...it gets even worse... We can now have duplicate and overlapping assignments to multiple End Users. There is no requirement for resource holders to have state of the art IPAM systems. A notebook on an office desk is perfectly valid. The same address block could be assigned to multiple End Users. Or two address blocks with an overlap. This could be accidental or intentional. Previously, you had to create the assignment objects in the database for an assignment to be valid. The database software prevented duplicate or overlapping assignments. Now you don't need to create these objects so there is no final check to prevent mistakes or deliberate intent. I don't know much about how internet technical operations work, so I am just going to put some thoughts here. People with more knowledge than I have can consider these scenarios to see if it is a problem. Suppose overlapping assignments are given to two End Users. Suppose they each only use the first few addresses of their respective assignments. Then only one is using the overlapping addresses. Can the LIR know for sure which End User is actually using those overlapping addresses? If not, then if some criminal activity occurs with those addresses, who committed the crime? We have also created a situation now where people with criminal intent can construct hierarchies of data that would hide the End User for a long period of time. Based on a comment by Europol that a court order can take months to get the information, we are looking at possibly delaying the identification of an End User by a couple of years. I won't describe how this can be done here. I don't want to give an instruction manual to criminals. I will explain it to Europol when I see them at RIPE 88. Looking at different parts of the address policy, there are other concerns now. (Yes I know this is the DB-WG and some people will use this to deflect attention away from the message by attacking the messenger. A frequently used tactic. But as I said over there, on the other list, not everything fits perfectly within the bounds of one WG. There is considerable overlap between Database and Address Policy.) 3.0 Goals of the Internet Registry System Because of the issue of duplicate and overlapping assignments mentioned above, two of the 4 goals of the Internet Registry System can no longer be guaranteed. 3.1 Uniqueness: this can no longer be maintained if it is possible to assign the same addresses to multiple End Users. 3.4 Registration: the public registry no longer contains sufficient detail to ensure uniqueness. 4.0 Registration Requirements The level of detail in the RIPE Database is no longer sufficient to ensure uniqueness. "Only allocations and assignments registered in the RIPE Database are considered valid." It is no longer possible to validate assignments that are aggregated. So this requirement no longer has any meaning. 6.3 Validity of an Assignment "An assignment is valid as long as the original criteria on which it was based remain valid and it is properly registered in the RIPE Database." Again because of the lack of detail about assignments within an aggregation is is not possible to determine if an assignment is valid. Although with or without aggregation, I am not sure what this 'validity' means in the real world. Was it to show if an IP address is actually assigned to an End User or maybe it is unused address space that has been hijacked? I have no idea how the 'original criteria' for an assignment is documented in the RIPE Database registry or any changes to that original criteria. Is this another example or registration rules that we have lost the meaning of? You can fix all this wording if you want, but in the end it makes no difference. Previously the policy said all resource holders MUST document assignments in the database. Some chose not to do that, even though it was mandatory. It seems the community has accepted that some resource holders refused to comply with mandatory policy. The RIPE NCC had no power to enforce the policy, other than the nuclear option of closure. One of the arguments for 2023-04 was that if we dilute the registration requirements, maybe a few more resource holders will choose to comply with the policy. If you make new rules about aggregation, some will choose to ignore them. Before we could see who chose to ignore the registration of assignments. Now we will have no idea who is ignoring any new rules. It's all hidden inside the aggregations. The proposers frequently referred to IPv6 and kept telling us how wonderful everything was 'over there'. So I had a look and not everything is rosy in the IPv6 garden. Let's look at some numbers. There are 16,144 /29 allocation objects. 11,246 of them have no more specific objects (i.e. nothing underneath the /29). That is about 70% of all the allocated IPv6 is either not in use or nothing has been registered about usage. If it is not in use, that is a huge stockpile of unused IPv6 address space. Why is it out there at all if no one is using it? If a lot of it is in use, even if it is only one assignment for the LIRs infrastructure, then it is a huge rejection of the registration policy to register nothing in the RIPE Database. So which one is it? A massive stockpile of unused address space or large scale refusal to register anything? There are only 4,898 /29 allocations that have any more specifics. Of these, 370 of them have 2 /30's with status (ALLOCATED-BY-LIR or AGGREGATED-BY-LIR) with *nothing* more specific below the /30's. That is about 7.6% of the registered in use IPv6 that tells us nothing about End Users. Of the 370 objects, 88 of them have two sub-allocations (ALLOCATED-BY-LIR) with no more specifics. So they don't even register any aggregations. I checked a number of these sub-allocation objects randomly and not one of them even had a mnt-lower. So the sub-allocation holder can't even create any aggregations or assignments. I also found a batch of them allocated to the same resource holder where both the /30 objects have been deleted in the last couple of weeks since these numbers were generated. The proposers of 2023-04 claimed IPv6 to be a beacon of perfection and used that to argue that nothing will go wrong with adding aggregation to IPv4. From my brief look at IPv6 all I see is a lot of very dodgy looking data with little information. I suspect that will become the reality for IPv4... So this optional, minor, inconsequential feature seems to have changed quite a lot. Is it worth all this for aggregation? I suspect many people will consider it worth it to make assignments optional. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG ======================================================== DISCLAIMER Everything I said above is my personal, professional opinion. It is what I believe to be honest and true to the best of my knowledge. No one in this industry pays me anything. I have nothing to gain or lose by any decision. I push for what I believe is for the good of the Internet, in some small way. Nothing I say is ever intended to be offensive or a personal attack. Even if I strongly disagree with you or question your motives. Politicians question each other's motives all the time. RIPE discussion is often as much about politics and self interest as it is technical. I have a style of writing that some may not be familiar with, others sometimes use it against me. I also have OCD. It makes me see the world slightly differently to others. It drives my mind's obsessive need for detail. I can not change the way I express my detailed opinions. People may choose how to interpret them. ========================================================

2 1

Agenda RIPE88 - Database Working Group
by William Sylvester 15 May '24

15 May '24

All, Here is the proposed agenda for the Database Working Group for RIPE88. If you would like to present, have questions, comments, or requested changes please let the chairs know. Best regards, William, Denis, & David DB-WG Chairs A. Introduction - 15 min * Welcome * Scribe * Agenda B. Operational Update– 25 mins Edward Shryane, RIPE NCC C. NWI Review – 15 mins, WG Chairs D. WG Discussion – 25 mins, WG Chairs Z. AOB (open discussion)

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Complying with Mail Provider Requirements When Sending Mail from Whois
by Lutz Donnerhacke 13 May '24

13 May '24

* Denis Walker wrote: > But looking through lots of email notifications about changes that you > already know about, because you did them, and maybe in the middle is a > notification of an attempted security breach that failed on > authentication (that you may miss), doesn't that also eat up brain > cycles? Please do not assume that LIR activities are single handed everywhere. Several LIRs do have an automation (i.e. netbox) to update the RIPE DB. Others might have multiple independent people working with RIPE on their own behalf. So notifications, especially the notify: attribute are currently in use. > So how about a compromise. A full audit trail of all details of all > changes to all your data available by default to designated people > through your portal account. Plus a daily email summarising all the > changes also sent to people whose email addresses are set up in the > portal account. So still no notif email addresses needed all across > the database. This could even be done per maintainer. How about using the notify: attribute for notifications?

7 8

Re: [db-wg] Call for Volunteers for RIPE Database Working Group Co-Chair
by Randy Bush 07 May '24

07 May '24

> Peter Hessler volunteered for the working group co-chair position. cool beans! thanks peter. randy

1 0

Proceeding with NWI-4
by David Tatlisu 02 May '24

02 May '24

Hi everyone, Following recent discussions the working group chairs have determined the new "status" option for NWI-4 garnered the most support. The working group chairs would like to ask the NCC to proceed with the implementation. Your feedback and engagement have been invaluable throughout this process, and we appreciate your continued involvement as we move forward with NWI-4. Kind regards, Denis, William, and David

2 1