- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Fw: [anti-abuse-wg] NWI reviews: NWI-1 staying on top of abuse contact changes
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 24 Sep '20

24 Sep '20

Hi Lutz Good try but this script does not do it. Firstly, if you start with the allocation object it needs to be -rM in the first query. Then you are only looking for the "org:" attribute. The INET(6)NUM object may have an "abuse-c:" attribute in the object. It may have both in which case the local attribute overrides the "abuse-c:" in the referenced ORGANISATION object. Also to manage this feature it is not just about producing a list of abuse email addresses. It is knowing where these are referenced within a hierarchy and knowing which parts of the hierarchy are covered by which addresses. I agree that most resources will only have a single abuse contact referenced from their single ORGANISATION object. However, we were pushed hard by the community to allow "abuse-c:" to be added to the INET(6)NUM objects. I assume therefore that this feature has been used. So we already have a mix of abuse contacts referenced from both ORGANISATION and resource objects. When this was asked for the emphasis was on 'ease of use' to add these contacts. Probably no one gave much thought to how these contacts will be cleaned up when no longer relevant. It's most likely that someone will ask someone to remove it. Knowing human nature it is more likely some will just be forgotten about. If the contact is still there it is still active, but maybe no one is reading that email address any longer. I am not an operator so I don't know how many end user customers in large networks handle their own abuse reports. Or how many sub allocations handle abuse with their own customers handling abuse. So I don't know how complex this will get and maybe all operators already have good procedures in place to manage all this. That is why I am asking the question...is such a visualisation tool needed, useful or a waste of time? As an analyst, I can only see how complex this 'could' become over time. Unless we go back to the drawing board and redesign the abuse contact system (again) this is not going to be simplified any time soon. cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG On Thursday, 24 September 2020, 15:32:09 CEST, Lutz Donnerhacke via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > We need to take some action on these old NWIs. Either we move forward > with them or we cancel them. It is difficult to draw a consensus on 2 > comments. Can you please give us a couple of minutes of your time and > let us know if this NWI-1 is needed, useful or a waste of time. > > I share the view already expressed. If we need a tool, maybe the problem > is somewhere else. I support any proposal, that comes to the same result as the ripe whois database tool. It's not really hard to do correctly. #! /bin/sh getripe="whois -h whois.ripe.net --" $getripe -rL -T inetnum,inet6num "$1" | egrep '^org:' | while read ot ov; do $getripe -r -T organisation $ov | egrep '^abuse-c:' | while read at av; do $getripe -r $av | fgrep abuse-mailbox done done | tail -1 In order to fix the issue on the database side, it's necessary to prevent any occurrence of "abuse-mailbox" in all objects beside an newly created "abuse-contact" type, which is only allowed to referenced in the "abuse-c". See here for a corner case: https://lutz.donnerhacke.de/eng/Blog/Antispammers-and-Abuse-C

2 1

Fw: [anti-abuse-wg] NWI reviews: NWI-1 staying on top of abuse contact changes
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 24 Sep '20

24 Sep '20

Colleagues We need to take some action on these old NWIs. Either we move forward with them or we cancel them. It is difficult to draw a consensus on 2 comments. Can you please give us a couple of minutes of your time and let us know if this NWI-1 is needed, useful or a waste of time. cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG ----- Forwarded message ----- From: ripedenis--- via anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net>To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net>Sent: Tuesday, 22 September 2020, 22:50:52 CESTSubject: [anti-abuse-wg] NWI reviews: NWI-1 staying on top of abuse contact changes Colleagues This is now a very old NWI that never got out of the starting blocks. I am posting this to the AA-WG as I think the discussion is more relevant to this community given the impact of not properly managing this data. https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-May/005234.html Since I raised this point the world has moved on and the situation is now even more complex. The "abuse-c:" attribute can be added to:-the resource holders primary ORGANISATION object-any secondary ORGANISATION object referenced from any point in the address hierarchy-any resource object at any point in the address hierarchy-all, or any combination, of the above These (multiple) "abuse-c:" attributes can reference the same or multiple ROLE objects. These (multiple) ROLE objects can include "abuse-mailbox:" attributes referencing the same or multiple email addresses. Over time, with large hierarchies, we could end up with very complex arrangements with objects, attributes and values that have been overlooked and forgotten about. Even though they may have been forgotten about they are still 'active' and queries will return the most appropriate abuse contact details, even if it is the wrong contact. There is no simple query that will return the details of such a complex structure of abuse contact data in the RIPE Database. So there is no easy way for a resource holder to review or manage these abuse contacts. Although most resources will only ever have one abuse contact for the whole hierarchy, over several years we could end up with the kind of data swamp we had before we introduced the "abuse-c:" attribute for the larger networks. Any user could write their own script to do more specific queries, parse the returned objects and work out the abuse contact data structure for their resource. It would require detailed knowledge of the RIPE Database structure, the abuse contact rules and would involve multiple queries just to get the data, which you then have to visualise. My reason for this NWI-1 was to suggest the RIPE NCC creates a tool or RIPEstat widget that would take in a resource and map out the abuse contact details for the whole hierarchy including that resource. Would this be useful, is it necessary or a waste of time? Please discuss.... cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG

3 2

Re: [db-wg] 57.224.0.0/11
by Lutz Donnerhacke 23 Sep '20

23 Sep '20

> In message <20200923071702.GA5107(a)hydra.ck.polsl.pl>, > Piotr Strzyzewski <Piotr.Strzyzewski(a)polsl.pl> wrote: > >Let me add some little humour here: > > > >$ dig txt gb. +short > >"This domain is frozen and will be phased out" > >"For details see the web page on: www.nic.uk" > >"Domain names for United Kingdom go under .uk" > > > >It is "phased out" for many years already. ;-) To make it even more funny: In the ICANN32 meeting in Paris in 2008, the IDN ccTLD fast track session was heavily heating, because only non-latin scripts should qualify for this "fast track" procedure. So the GAC member from UK stand up and insisted, that they need to have geographic region TLDs, too. The response from the plenum was ... "You insisting in obey the rules, word by word?" - "Yes." - "So your ISO 3166 code is GB, but you are using UK, which violates the rules. I'd suggest to clean up you mess first, ..." - the GAC member sat down, redfaced.

1 0

57.224.0.0/11
by Ronald F. Guilmette 23 Sep '20

23 Sep '20

I admit to being a bit naive and uneducated, so perhaps someone here will take pity on me and explain this to me. I was under the impression that the world was running out of IPv4 addresses. But regardless of that, it seems that a old line French company that has been in business since 1949 was awarded an entire /11 block by RIPE NCC as recently as February of this year. I confess that this leaves me a bit perplexed. If someone will explain, I'll appreciate it. And, oh, by the way, yes, I do see the word "LEGACY" there. But I also see two different created: lines and their associated field values, both of which appear to tell a rather different story. inetnum: 57.224.0.0 - 57.255.255.255 netname: SITA-NET country: BE org: ORG-SIDT4-RIPE admin-c: SITA tech-c: SITA status: LEGACY mnt-by: SITA-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-LEGACY-MNT created: 2020-02-04T16:41:22Z last-modified: 2020-02-04T16:41:22Z source: RIPE organisation: ORG-SIDT4-RIPE org-name: Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques org-type: LIR address: Chemin de Joinville 26 address: 1216 address: Geneva address: SWITZERLAND phone: +41227476000 e-mail: info(a)sita.aero abuse-c: SITA mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-ref: SITA-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: SITA-MNT created: 2015-06-10T15:19:37Z last-modified: 2016-08-24T10:21:24Z source: RIPE

5 12

Call for Presentations / DRAFT Agenda RIPE81 - Database Working Group
by William Sylvester 14 Sep '20

14 Sep '20

Dear Working Group Members, Below is the proposed agenda for the Database Working Group for RIPE81. If you would like to present please submit your content as soon as possible to the chairs. If you have any questions, comments, or requested changes please let the chairs know. Best regards, William & Denis DB-WG Chairs A. Introduction - 5 min * Welcome * Scribe * Jabber * Agenda B. Operational Update RIPE Database – XX mins Edward Shryane, RIPE NCC C. Proposed Presentations HERE – YY mins D. NWI - Open Proposals – 5 mins Z. AOB (open discussion)

1 0

mntner with misleading primary key
by Tom Hill 08 Sep '20

08 Sep '20

Hello db-wg, A simple query to the RIPEDB ('whois -h whois.ripe.net -r AS2856') returns the aut-num AS2856 that you would expect, but it also returns a mntner with the same primary key: % Information related to 'as2856' mntner: as2856 admin-c: JA6431-RIPE auth: SSO # Filtered mnt-by: as2856 created: 2018-08-23T15:46:37Z last-modified: 2018-08-23T15:46:37Z source: RIPE # Filtered This has caused some concern, and while we (2856) have already determined how that mnter came to be in the database - and that there isn't any immediate risk - it isn't in any way affiliated with the AS2856 network, or any part of the parent company. One can imagine that given the quality of NOCs & their understanding of database objects the world over, that one of them might be convinced that the person associated with this mntner was indeed associated with the network AS2856, and they might also be convinced to announce prefixes that they otherwise should not. It is obvious that speaking to the owner of the mntner and politely asking them to switch to a new mntner would be pertinent, but as far as I'm aware they're under no obligation to do so. Yet, it feels that AS2856 (or any network in the RIPE region) remains potentially at some risk should a bad actor combine such a mntner, with some questionable verification of their credentials, and socially engineer their way toward a route hijack. Should it be possible to create mntners (or other objects) that infer a relationship and/or authority to a given aut-num (or organisation?) Might there be negative side-effects in restricting the primary key of mntners from impersonating other objects? I'm unable to construct a query to the RIPEDB that looks for mntner objects beginning with 'as', in order to gauge how common this is. I suspect that's because the phrase is too short, but if it is possible please do enlighten me! :) Regards, -- Tom

12 22

Re: [db-wg] RPSL requirements in aut-num objects
by Lutz Donnerhacke 28 Aug '20

28 Aug '20

> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 05:58:19PM +0000, Lutz Donnerhacke via db-wg > wrote: > > I'd suggest to remove the crippled parser from the records in the > > first step. > > Even if someone tries to use the data-set, it's not even possible to > > bring in correct data. > > How do you expect an adoption under this condition? > > > > So, my primary question: Where is the source code and how to > > contribute? > > Secondary question: Can we first declare the fields as free from text > > fields, before removing them? > > What is the benefit of declaring such fields 'free form'? RFC 2622 requires to accept attributes which are not defined in the dictionary during paring. Of course, then the parser has no ability to validate the arguments or the allowed operators. It should issue a warning or ignore the attribute. Unfortunately the current parser in the RIPE DB has a different understanding of RPSL: it does not even allow attributes defined in the RFC (i.e. next-hop, protocols). So it's not possible to fill the aut-num with valid RPSL, or even adding new attributes. As long as the parser is broken, the field might be not validated (or issue a warning instead of an error). And the parser should be fixed. That's why I'm asking for the location of the source code.

1 0

RPSL parser nits
by Lutz Donnerhacke 18 Aug '20

18 Aug '20

Hello, I try to be a bit more expressive in the aut-num of ASN199284, but fail to get accepted at least the valid parts by the RPSL parser. Of course, there are invalid expressions in my terms for the sake of expressiveness, i.e. - next-hop is only valid for static routes - communities must not contain the PeerAS pattern But the other parts should be accepted, i.e. - protocol OSPF - rtr-sets in router expression part It would be a cool idea to keep the formatting, or better have smart pretty printing of the RSPLng structures. Currently only the "syncupdate" Interface is able to keep the line warps, which is pretty annoying. Where can I found the currently running code and do you accept patches in this regard? Many thanks in advance Lutz Donnerhacke

6 10

NWI-11 Internationalised Domain Names
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 06 Aug '20

06 Aug '20

Hi Ed The chairs see there is a consensus to move forward with implementing Punycode. Can you present an impact analysis explaining what changes you propose, what effect those changes will have on updates and queries (by all the different methods), if anyone needs to modify their software interacting with the database. cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG

4 9

NWI-11 Internationalised Domain Names
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 14 Jul '20

14 Jul '20

Colleagues There has been some discussion recently and many times over the years about addressing this issue. The chairs believe there has been enough support shown to move forward with this. We would therefore like to present this as 'NWI-11 Internationalised Domain Names'. We propose a problem statement based on the text provided recently by Leo Vegoda, as shown below. The RIPE NCC has a proposal for a solution to this problem using punycode. We would like to ask the RIPE NCC to present this proposal to the working group. If anyone has any other proposals for a solution, we welcome a discussion on this matter. cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG Problem Statement The RIPE NCC service region includes countries whose language is not written using Latin script. Many of the languages used in the RIPE NCC service region are written in Latin script but use diacritical marks that fall outside the US-ASCII character set. Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) support the use of these scripts in DNS. ICANN began delegating IDN Top-Level Domains as part of a test program in 2007 and the IETF updated the IDNA protocol in 2008 and as of mid 2020, there were over 160 IDN TLDs in the root zone. The IETF published eight standards track RFCs on using IDNs in e-mail in 2012 and 2013. It is reasonable that organizations communicating with people whose preferred script is not Latin-based would want to use an IDN domain for e-mail as well as a web presence. It is also likely that the registry for an IDN TLD would want to use that TLD for its e-mail addresses. RFC 3912 explicitly notes that the WHOIS protocol has not been internationalized while recognizing that some servers attempt to do so. RDAP has been deployed by the RIPE NCC and explicitly supports internationalization by UTF-8 encoding all queries and responses. The RIPE community could decide to ignore EAI by trying to require organizations to deploy a secondary e-mail address for use in the RIPE Database. This would reduce the effectiveness of the RIPE Database as the secondary address is less likely to be monitored and used, and so be ineffective.

7 19