- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Draft Minutes from Tallin RIPE meeting
by Nigel Titley 29 Jun '07

29 Jun '07

Gentlefolk, I've been very remiss in not posting these minutes before, but the extra time has allowed Chris (of the RIPE NCC) and me to give them an extra burnishing. So, don your sunglasses, and view these excellent minutes. Comments welcome Nigel This email and any attachments may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail and you are not a named addressee, please inform the sender of this email by sending a return email to the address above and then delete the e-mail and your response from your system. If you are not a named addressee you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author. Any statements made, or intentions expressed in this communication may not necessarily reflect the view of Easynet. No content herein will bind Easynet or any associated company unless confirmed by the execution of a formal contract by Easynet. Any figures or amounts given in this email are quotations only and are subject to change. Although Easynet routinely screens for viruses, addressees should scan this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. Easynet makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses in this e-mail or any attachments. Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our customers and business, we may monitor and read e-mails sent to and from our server(s). Easynet Limited a company incorporated and existing under the laws of England and Wales, with company number 2954343 and having its registered office at 44-46 Whitfield Street London, W1T 2RJ.

1 0

IPv6 access to the RIPE Database server is restored
by Katie Petrusha 29 Jun '07

29 Jun '07

[ Apologies for duplicate mails ] Dear Colleagues, IPv6 access to the RIPE Database server has now been restored. The server was unable to respond to queries over IPv6 from 11:12 (UTC), 29 June 2007. Details of this incident are available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/db-wg/2007/msg00118.html We apologise for any inconvenience. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please send an e-mail to <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Katie Petrusha Database Department RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE DB not accessible over IPv6
by Agoston Horvath 29 Jun '07

29 Jun '07

Dear Colleagues, >From 11:12 on 29 June 2007, the RIPE Database is not able to respond to queries over IPv6. All other services (updates, queries over IPv4) are unaffected. This problem is due to a firewall-related issue in our Juniper routers. We apologise for any inconvenience. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please contact us at: <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net> Regards, Agoston Horvath Database Group RIPE NCC

1 0

"-c" flag to become default in RIPE Database server
by Katie Petrusha 27 Jun '07

27 Jun '07

[Apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, On 1 August 2007, the following changes will be made to the default behaviour for IP queries of the RIPE Database: * The "-c" flag behaviour will become the default for all IP queries. This means that when querying an IP address or range, any query not containing the "-L", "-l", "-M", "-m" or "-x" flags will, by default, return the IRT object referenced by the closest less specific inet(6)num (if such a reference exists). * A new "-C" flag will be implemented to provide the old behaviour and ensure backwards compatibility. The behaviour of the "-c" flag itself will not change, nor will there be any change for those queries that include other IP flags ("-L", "-l", "-M", "-m" or "-x"). Please adjust any software that you maintain that queries the RIPE Database and relies on this behaviour. Regards, Katie Petrusha Database Department RIPE NCC

2 2

Proposal to remove "RIPE Document" status from RIPE database documents
by Katie Petrusha 26 Jun '07

26 Jun '07

[ Apologies for duplicate mails ] Dear colleagues, To your attention the proposal to remove "RIPE Document" status from RIPE Database documents. Introduction ------------ Currently all the RIPE Database documents are classed as official RIPE Documents. This means that any changes to the documents must be made via a formal, and sometimes lengthy, procedure. As a result, changes are grouped and updates to the documents are staged periodically, meaning that the documents are often out of date in some way. Based on discussions at RIPE 54, the RIPE NCC is currently finalising eight proposals to send to the community. Each of these will require changes to the database documentation. There are also a number of other issues still to be discussed by the Data Protection Task Force, any of which may result in further proposals, as well as software or procedure changes, which may require further changes to the documentation. To keep the documents up to date throughout this process will require almost monthly releases, which is not possible under the current scheme. Proposal -------- The documents listed below [1] do not define any RIPE policies. These documents explain how the database software applies policy that is defined in other formal RIPE Policy Documents and RFCs. The RIPE Database Update Reference Manual [1], for example, explains how the database software applies the route authentication process, but the process itself is defined in other official documents. We propose to remove the official RIPE Document status on the documents listed below [1]. This will allow us to more frequently modify these documents and keep them in line with developments as they occur. All documents will remain available to users on the RIPE website in the same format as they are currently presented. References ---------- [1] List of documents: * RIPE Database Query Reference Manual (ripe-401) * RIPE Database Update Reference Manual (ripe-252 and ripe-draft) * RIPE Database User Manual: Getting Started (ripe-402) -- Katie Petrusha Database Department RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: db-wg digest, Vol 1 #520 - 1 msg
by Denis W 26 Jun '07

26 Jun '07

Hi Joao I agree. So lets focus first on a consensus for stage 1. Then we can start work on that while we continue discussions on the other stages and the impacts they will have on work flow of LIRs. regards Denis RIPE NCC Cc: Database WG , ncc-services-wg From: Joao Damas Subject: Re: [db-wg] Proposal - Maintaining person, role and domain objects Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:00:20 +0200 To: Denis Walker Stage 1 makes a lot of sense to me as it has little consequences to older data while it makes sure new information going into the DB has a better chance of being kept as originally posted by the object creator. The other stages do need a bit more discussion as they may in fact affect a lot of legacy data and have the potential to add a burden to LIR operations. I am in favour of those extra steps, just think that there is a need to repeat the warnings and announcements before and insist on people making an impact analysis on their operations. Joao Damas On 21 Jun 2007, at 14:41, Denis Walker wrote: > [Apologies for duplicate mails] > > Dear Colleagues, > > As a result of discussions during the Database Working Group > session at > RIPE 54, the RIPE NCC has nine proposals and implementation plans to > present to the community. Although most of them are now in the final > stages of preparation, we will send them out one at a time over the > next > few weeks for consideration by the community. > > The first one concerns maintaining all objects in the RIPE > Database, which > followed from a recommendation from the Data Protection Task Force > (DP TF) > (see below). We have already had some preliminary discussions about > this > with the DP TF. They provided the RIPE NCC with some very useful > feedback, > which is incorporated in this proposal. > > Regards > Denis Walker > RIPE NCC > > > > Maintaining person, role and domain objects > ------------------------------------------- > > > Implementation > As with the CRYPT-PW deprecation this will have a staged rollout. > > Stage 1 > > * No new person, role or domain objects can be created without a > "mnt-by:" attribute. > * Any un-maintained person, role or domain object cannot be modified > without adding a "mnt-by:" attribute. > * Any update where objects reference an un-maintained person object, > either directly or through a mntner with such references, will > generate a warning message in the acknowledgement. > > In this stage the acknowledgement message may include these warnings: > > ***WARNING: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE] > ***WARNING: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE] in > mntner [AARDVARK-MNT] > > Stage 2 > > * Any update where objects reference an un-maintained person object, > either directly or through a mntner with such references, will > generate a warning message in the acknowledgement. > * Any NEW reference to an un-maintained person object or to a mntner > which has such references will generate an error message in the > acknowledgement and the update will fail. > > In this stage the acknowledgement message may include these warnings > and errors: > > ***WARNING: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE] > ***WARNING: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE] in > mntner [AARDVARK-MNT] > ***ERROR: New reference to un-maintained person object [DW-RIPE] > ***ERROR: New reference to un-maintained person object [DW-RIPE] in > mntner [AARDVARK-MNT] > > Stage 3 > > * Any update where objects reference an un-maintained person object, > either directly or through a mntner with such references, will > generate an error message in the acknowledgement and the update > will fail. > > In this stage the acknowledgement message may include these errors: > > ***ERROR: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE] > ***ERROR: Un-maintained person object referenced [DW-RIPE] in mntner > [AARDVARK-MNT] > > > Statistics > ---------- > While not a very statistically valid survey, we looked at a few days > just after the RIPE meeting to see how many new person objects were > created with and without mntner objects. We also queried the new > objects some time after creation to allow for a "mnt-by:" to be added > later. We also noted how many unique person objects were referenced in > any objects in update messages with and without mntner objects. AUTO- > references were ignored in both creations and updates, and multiple > instances of the same person object being referenced many times were > counted as one. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > | Date |Created |Created |Referenced |Referenced | > | |with |without |with |without | > |--------------------------------------------------------| > | 20070515 | 156 | 89 | 925 | 726 | > | 20070516 | 111 | 67 | 1022 | 486 | > | 20070517 | 85 | 48 | 476 | 185 | > | 20070518 | 82 | 18 | 679 | 445 | > -------------------------------------------------------- > End of db-wg Digest --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.

1 0

RIPE NCC Network Maintenance Wednesday 20 June 17:00 to 19:00 UTC/GMT
by Mark Guz 18 Jun '07

18 Jun '07

[apologies for duplicates] Dear Colleagues, On Wednesday 20/06/2007, between 17:00 and 19:00 (UTC), the RIPE NCC will carry out planned maintenance work on our network infrastructure. This may result in brief interruptions to RIPE NCC services during the posted maintenance window. We apologise for any inconvenience that this may cause. This work is due to planned resilience testing of our network. If you have any questions about this, please send an e-mail to: ops(a)ripe.net <mailto:ops@ripe.net>. Regards Mark Guz Senior Engineer RIPE NCC

1 0

***Error: Date in the future in changed: attribute '20070607'
by Max Tulyev 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Hi! I just sent a request for creating a new object in the RIPE DB, but got such error. But we really have June, 07 now here (GMT+2) =) Is it a bug or a feature? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

5 7

Re: Network Maintenance - Tuesday, 5 June 2007
by James Aldridge 05 Jun '07

05 Jun '07

-------- James Aldridge wrote: > The RIPE NCC will perform planned maintenance work on Tuesday, 5 June > 2007 between 17:00 and 18:00 (UTC). > > This work will affect a number of servers and may result in a short > outage of some RIPE NCC services. We apologise for any inconvenience > that this may cause. This maintenance work has now been successfully completed. Regards, James -- James Aldridge, Senior Systems & Network Engineer, RIPE NCC Tel: +31 20 535 4444 / Fax: +31 20 535 4445

1 0

RE: Changing/Adding route objects
by Michael Markstaller 05 Jun '07

05 Jun '07

Hi, getting back on this topic from quite a while ago, I just found it while having exactly this problem.. >On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 08:28:29AM +0200, Ihler, Hermann wrote: >> if OLD-ISP updates his objects as follows it also will >> work: > >But that's winfried's point: the old ISP need to actively enable >creation of the new route object. And/or it needs, as in my case, being able to actually do this in time. My favorite answer for today, waiting since Friday, is "This is an automated system, I cannot do this. I can only delete the object" (Which means in my basic understanding of IRR, if I don't create the new one in time, I'll be filtered by anybody doing best practice and use IRR..) This makes me waiting this night for this magic change to happen sometime.. I somehow don't trust on what this change from an "automated system" being oparted by poeple that don't have the mntner theirselve (maybe for some good reason) will actually do.. So I'm with the inital suggestion: the mntner of the inetnum should be able to override/make changes to the route-object of his own network, regardless which mntner is sitting on it. If there are good reasons against this, I'm happy to learn the these. regards Michael Markstaller

2 1