- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: hierarchical route objects, part 1
by Schmitz＠RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Dear Curtis, dear David, you both wrote: > > > Your black hat example is also flawed. At the top of the heirachy can > > > be 0/0 registered to IANA and withdrawn (not announced). The > > > registries themselves can have top level objects below that. In order > > > to make any changes, you need to have been given authorization from a > > > higher level. You can then assign authorization to lower blocks to > > > other parties. > > > > This works for IP network objects since the registries need to add these > > objects manually anyway. > > > > This is not that obvious for 'route' objects. Are you proposing that the > > registries have to approve (manually) all the route objects that are > > in the route hierarchy directly below their own allocated space ? > > Tie the hierarchy to the inetnums. Continue to flog the InterNIC for > non-participation in the IRR. The maintainer of a database such as > the RADB that uses InterNIC as the number registry may have to take > InterNIC data (ftp) and load it into inetnum records. I wonder about the effort necessary to do this. Moreover, we should not forget about pure routing registries - they would be forced to include inetnums as well (and I wonder whether they are willing to do so) > > An inetnum references one or more maintainer (in mnt-by). To create a > route object, you must satisfy one of the criteria: > > 1. You must be in the maintainer field in a less specific route > object (used to create route objects for more specific prefixes; > hopefully these get aggregated somewhere ). > > 2. You must be in a maintainer for the exact inet-num and for the > AS that you are putting in the route object (used after the > initial top level route object is created). > > Once a top level route object is created, a more specific route object > can be created and the mnt-by field can reference more than one > maintainer. > > Here is an example. The registries approve of the top level blocks, > that is the aggregates (or blocks that should be announced as > aggregates). Whoever the aggregate is allocated to creates the top > level route object and can delegate below that. For example, ANS has > 207.24/14. There were two route objects needed to handle multihomed > (a /22 and a /24) prefixes. The usual way a provider would delegate > would be to reference more than one maintainer in the route object > (the provider and the customer, and probably the other provider if the > route object had a unique origin AS). > This scheme sounds reasonable but it raises the question of coordination among different registries... Regards Joachim _____________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Joachim Schmitz schmitz(a)noc.dfn.de DFN Network Operation Center Rechenzentrum der Universitaet Stuttgart ++ 711 685 5553 voice Allmandring 30 ++ 711 678 8363 FAX D-70550 Stuttgart FRG (Germany) _____________________________________________________________________________

2 1

RIPE-26, DB-WG, Proposed Agenda, 2nd Draft
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

Dear all! This is the 2nd draft of the proposed agenda for the January 1997 DB-WG Meeting in Amsterdam. I forgot to include the proposed DB copyright item in the 1st draft, my apologies. There's a couple of additional minor changes. As usual any and all comments and input appreciated. See you in Amsterdam, Wilfried. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Proposed Agenda for the Database Working Group Meeting RIPE-26, January 1997, Amsterdam 2nd Draft, 8.1.1997 A. Administrative stuff (W. Woeber, chair) - volunteering of the scribe - WG-agenda bashing B. DB-SW status report by the RIPE NCC (DB-SW maintainers, RIPE-NCC) - recent changes - recent bug fixes and development (if any) - feedback and experience C. RIPE-DB copyright (D. Karrenberg, RIPE NCC) - proposal to include copyright line in whois output D. Report on DB evaluation by VUA - consistency - usage E. Reports (D. Kessens, ISI) - on RPSL - on 'ride' (registry data exchange format) F. Documentation (DB-SW maintainers, RIPE-NCC) - current status, progress, review, test-driving - availability G. New functionality, proposals, reports - IPv6 object proposal (D. Kessens, ISI) - hierarchical authorisation for route: obj (J. Schmitz, DFN NOC) (**note: this item might be discussed in the Routing-WG and consequently be moved to agenda item Y.) - short report on improving DB security and authentication (**to be confirmed, J. Schmitz, DFN NOC) - extension for inet-rtr: obj (tentatively, W.Woeber/E.J.Bos/et.al.) - extending the list of attributes that can be used in -i lookup? - improved url handling (in HTML interface) - handling of timestamps (changed:, different time-zones, UTC,...) - report on/review of the consolidated wish-list Y. General input from other WGs Z. AOB -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 4

Person-Objects with multiple adresses + phones
by Nacamar AS Guardian 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

Hello, there are a number of persons with multiple _entries_ in the RIPE-Database, because they have multiple _adresses_, and I think, this is not handled well with our current implementation. To make this more acceptable for such people, something like the following should be possible: >>> person: Thomas Peters remarks: -- #1 - Main office: address: Thomas Peters address: Nacamar Data Communications GmbH address: Frankfurter Strasse 141 address: D-63303 Dreieich address: Germany phone: +49 6103 9901 14 fax-no: +49 6103 9901 18 e-mail: info(a)nacamar.net remarks: -- #2 - South office: address: Thomas Peters address: Herd-Weg 8 address: D-69198 Schriesheim OT. Ursenbach address: Germany phone: +49 6220 9111 25 fax-no: +49 6220 9111 259 e-mail: peters(a)nacamar.net remarks: -- #3 ... nic-hdl: TP65-RIPE ... <<< This applies too for people working as tech-c for several companies. It should be possible for each address-block to have its own phone/fax/eMail with it. As I understand the operation of the database now, all phone-numbers etc. are collected together, so the relationship to the addresses are lost. Best Regards, HaJo Gurt ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nacamar Network Administration NACAMAR Data Communications guardian(a)nacamar.net Frankfurter Str. 135-141 D-63303 Dreieich +49 6103 9901 ?? Voice Germany +49 6103 9901 18 FAX gurt(a)nacamar.de -------------------------------------------------------------------

4 3

Re: again: hierarchical route objects
by Schmitz＠RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

Dear all, was my last mail too long? I did not yet see any comments... (or is it that disgusting :-( I hope not ;-) Regards Joachim _____________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Joachim Schmitz schmitz(a)noc.dfn.de DFN Network Operation Center Rechenzentrum der Universitaet Stuttgart ++ 711 685 5553 voice Allmandring 30 ++ 711 678 8363 FAX D-70550 Stuttgart FRG (Germany) _____________________________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: NIC Handle's postfix
by Steven Bakker 15 Jan '97

15 Jan '97

==> From: Suwat Panitkullawat <suwat(a)rs.thnic.net> ==> Wed, 15 Jan 1997 21:43:39 +0700 (GMT+7:00) > From instruction in RIPE's configuration file. There is a suggestion that > we should not use NIC handle's postfix differrent from the source name. > > Can someone explain me why? Are there any serious errors if I do so. Depends on your definition of "serious" :-) If you set up your own database, with source "SUWAT" for example, but you choose to keep the "RIPE" postfix for NIC handles, you might be able to register a record for yourself, with handle "SP-RIPE". However, there is already an "SP-RIPE" in the RIPE database, causing some confusion. The idea of a NIC handle is to have a unique key pointing to a person. Using the "source:" as the postfix helps you identify in which database the handle is registered and avoids conflicting registrations for the same key. To be fair it's also a bit of a kludge, but probably the only thing that will work until we have a truly global IRR. And may facilitate merging existing operational databases once a global IRR is there, avoiding NIC handle clashes across databases. Of course, the postfix trick only works as long as the "source:"'s are allocated in a unique way. Hope this helps, Steven

1 0

RIPE-26, DB-WG, Proposed Agenda, 3rd Draft
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 14 Jan '97

14 Jan '97

Dear all! This is the 3rd draft of the proposed agenda for the January 1997 DB-WG Meeting in Amsterdam. This one - takes care of minor changes and some re-sequencing, - tries to estimate the time needed per topic (if it's not agreed already, please confirm presentation times!) - has some modifications for item F. As usual any and all comments and input appreciated. See you in Amsterdam, Wilfried. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Proposed Agenda for the Database Working Group Meeting RIPE-26, January 1997, Amsterdam 3rd Draft, Jan. 13, 1997 A. Administrative stuff (W.Woeber, chair) 10min - volunteering of the scribe - WG-agenda bashing - handling of minutes and actions in the future? B. DB-SW status report by the RIPE NCC (DB-SW maintainers, RIPE-NCC) 10min - recent changes - recent bug fixes and development (if any) - feedback from the users (if any) C. Report on DB evaluation by VUA 20min - consistency - usage D. Reports (D.Kessens, ISI) 30min - on RPSL - on 'ride' (registry data exchange format) E. Documentation (DB-SW maintainers, RIPE-NCC) 10min - current status, progress, review, test-driving - availability F. New functionality, proposals, reports 40min - IPv6 object proposal (D.Kessens, ISI) - summary report on issues to improve DB security and authentication (J.Schmitz, DFN NOC) - extension for inet-rtr: obj (tentatively, W.Woeber/E.J.Bos/et.al.) - extending the list of attributes that can be used in -i lookup? - improved url handling (in HTML interface) - proposed/implemented changes in date format for changed: attribute - handling of timestamps (changed:, different time-zones, UTC,...) - multiple contact "body parts" for a person: object - report on/review of the consolidated wish-list G. General input from other WGs 10min - hierarchical authorisation for route: obj (from Routing WG) Y. RIPE Database AUP (D.Karrenberg, RIPE NCC) 10min - short term measures to prevent abuse - defining an AUP Z. AOB # - . - # -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Immediate - Date in Changed field
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 14 Jan '97

14 Jan '97

=>> =>> I definitely agree for the need for this. But the changed attribute is =>> inserted by the person who registers the object, not by the database =>> software, he has the full control over which timezone he uses and to =>> lie. =>> =>> May be what we really want is a timestamp field with the granularity =>> you suggest and in UTC zone, but inserted to the objects automatically =>> by the database software. I see a lot of value in this. =>> => I completely agree with you. This can only be done if the database software => sets the time stamp. I guess this also solves most of the race conditions => otherwise implied. = =This would most definitely be a significant improvement (but is a =different point than the "changed" field) I believe this is on the =the list of Open Issues to be reviewed next week. If not it will be =then. = =Greetings, = =-- Carol Carol, I'm aware of that. And yes, in principle (by definition) the submitter of an object has to care about the date field supplied. But! - first of all, the DB-SW checks the date supplied against a date "in the future" (or has done that?, I think) and, - if *no* date field is supplied int the update message, then the software supplies the local date. And this *can* make a diference, isn't it? Of course, solving that in a decent way is preferred. Otoh, if (as long as) we rely on the user, we might add an (optional?) offset +/-xx hours from GMT if "The Solution to Everything" takes another couple of month to implement. (We might end up with 42 for a solution anyway :-) Cheers and let's see next week, Wiflried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Immediate - Date in Changed field
by Carol Orange 13 Jan '97

13 Jan '97

Dear Database WG members, We have been requested to ease the restrictions on the date in the "changed" attribute to allow for dates with 4 digit years specifically those starting with "19" and eventually "20". For obvious reasons, we agree with this proposition. However, we also understand that some of you may have software which presumes the date has the yymmdd format. If anyone has a serious problem with this change, please notify me personally (orange(a)ripe.net) before the end of the week. If we don't hear any show stoppers before the end of the week, we will proceed. Thereafter, the following will be acceptable formats: 19yymmdd 20yymmdd (eventually) yymmdd Thanks for your ear, -- Carol Orange

1 0

hierarchical route objects, part 1
by Schmitz＠RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE 11 Jan '97

11 Jan '97

Dear colleagues, regarding hierarchical authorization of route objects in the RIPE database: from what I have heard there is a general feeling that it is needed and the basic scheme to implement it should follow the lines: * The root of the authorization tree is an AS-object (aut-num object). If it contains a "mnt-lower" attribute it controls all route-objects which have this AS as origin. * Then for route-objects the same rules apply as for inetnum-objects with respect to IP subranges: If a route-object contains a "mnt-lower" attri- bute it controls all more specific route-objects immediately below. * The authorization is checked against - more or less specific route-objects, or existence of the route-object itself with same origin (differing origin rejected) - if no route-objects exist: which authorization is specified for the autnum-object referred to by the origin attribute (rejected if this authorisation is not met) - if not even an autnum-object exists no action is taken However: there is still a problem that route-objects are somehow logically linked to allocated address space. The question how to deal with this is still open - I continue on this in a separate mail. Yet, the three rules for route-objects described above are a kind of common denominator(*) and moreover a very reasonable approach (these rules are also independent of the address space allocation relation to route-objects). If there are no further denials I suggest to implement it that way. Regards Joachim (*) Yes, I know: When aiming for the common denominator, be prepared for the occasional division by zero. _____________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Joachim Schmitz schmitz(a)noc.dfn.de DFN Network Operation Center Rechenzentrum der Universitaet Stuttgart ++ 711 685 5553 voice Allmandring 30 ++ 711 678 8363 FAX D-70550 Stuttgart FRG (Germany) _____________________________________________________________________________

5 5

Re: hierarchical route objects, part 1
by Steven Bakker 10 Jan '97

10 Jan '97

==> From: Gabor Kiss <kissg(a)sztaki.hu> ==> Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:28:52 +0100 CA> I disagree that this is a good idea. If I register the following route CA> object (which actually exists): CA> CA> route: 128.0.0.0/1 CA> descr: HALF-DEFAULT-ONE CA> origin: AS1800 CA> advisory: AS690 1:1800 2:1239 CA> mnt-by: MAINT-AS1800 CA> mnt-lower: MAINT-AS1800 CA> CA> nobody else can register any route objects. GK> This can be prevented by this object GK> route: 0.0.0.0/0 GK> descr: for authorisation purposes GK> origin: AS0 GK> mnt-lower: MAINT-INTERNIC GK> etc. GK> GK> Internic (or whatever else) may delegate maintainer rights as well GK> as allocates address ranges. That still doesn't help you if the 128.0.0.0/1 is already registered (which it is); I imagine the proposed auth scheme would look for the most specific enclosing route object, which is 128.0.0.0/1 and not 0.0.0.0/0 (for most routes nowadays anyway). Steven

2 1