- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Sander Steffann 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Hi, Op 17 okt. 2017, om 09:53 heeft Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> het volgende geschreven: > These two options represent what currently is the lowest hanging fruit > to improve in this problem space. Funny enough, neither of these items > makes things more difficult for anyone involved, on the contrary - by > making route: authorisation easier, _and_ showing what is authoritative > data and what is not, we improve the security posture of the RIPE > community. +1 This is low-hanging fruit indeed, and I see no problems with either of them. Cheers, Sander

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Daniel Shaw 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

On 11/10/2017, 18:22, Sascha typed: > > >> Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects for non RIPE resources? This question has to be split into two to be able to be answered. Part 1: Should RIPE DB allow creation of route/route6 objects when both the inetnum(6) and aut-num resources are non-RIPE? Part 2: Should RIPE DB allow creation of route/route6 objects where one or the other of the prefix or origin asn *are* in the RIPE DB, and the other is not. That is so call cross-rir route objects? Part 2 is trickier, and largely what this thread is debating as I understand it. For part 1, I struggle to see any good reason to allow this to continue. It simple allows for anyone to create any route: objects, referring to any combination of resources that may or may not have any bearing on the reality of the internet. There is not even a good verification the resources are even allocated at all. In addition, once set up, there is zero incentive for anyone to ever delete these once obsolete. This was necessary once upon a time, as there were no useful alternatives then. That is now history. > > Is an option D: create a central IRRDB with authentication hooks > into all RIRs completely out of the question? I don't see that as a practical or realistic option. Regards, Daniel

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Daniel Shaw 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

On 11/10/2017, 17:48, Nick Hilliard via db-wg typed: > > > Job Snijders wrote: >> I think this touches upon an incredibly important question: how do we >> distinguish between garbage and properly authenticated "route:" >> objects covering RIPE-managed space? > > and more to the point: are there good reasons and community support for > continuing not to distinguish between the two. Quite so. I cannot see any. Having a flag/label that makes it clear right away how much authentication a given route:/rotue6: object has associated with it can only be a good thing. That doesn't change the existence or creation of any class of object. But clearly marking what is what seems a no brainer to me. Thanks, Daniel

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Lu Heng 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Hi Guys: How about not change any status in BD until we have an automated API to deal with this. How about Just simply send an email the the holder in foreign database to notify them properly. I think the biggest problem we have here is not foreign route object being created, but rather they being created without holder’s knowledge. On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:03 den is via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > 3) Consider possible, simple options to allow non RIPE resource > holders to 'approve' (if not authorise) the creation of a foreign > ROUTE object. > > cheers > denis > co-chair DB WG > > > On 17 October 2017 at 01:23, William Sylvester via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > wrote: > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: William Sylvester <william.sylvester(a)addrex.net> > > To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > Cc: > > Bcc: > > Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:22:55 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final > decision? > > Db-wg members, > > > > Now that there has been substantial discussion on this topic, I wanted > to try to bring the conversation back to a more practical and actionable > path forward. Clearly this is a topic where there are a lot of opinions. > From seeing the discussion and receiving additional feedback, I wanted to > point out some re-occurring themes and request a revised proposal for > working group consideration. > > > > > > 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently the > only RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates data > concurrency issues across Internet databases by requiring the creation of > duplicate autnums. > > > > 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source: > RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data. > > > > > > I’d like to seek input from the group; > > > > - Do you feel these options are straight forward and easy to understand? > > - Does this provide a reasonable security posture? > > - Will this make a positive impact for RIPE DB and the greater Internet? > > - Do you support these concepts? > > > > > > Thanks, > > William > > Db-wg co-chair > > > > > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by William Sylvester 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Db-wg members, Now that there has been substantial discussion on this topic, I wanted to try to bring the conversation back to a more practical and actionable path forward. Clearly this is a topic where there are a lot of opinions. From seeing the discussion and receiving additional feedback, I wanted to point out some re-occurring themes and request a revised proposal for working group consideration. 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently the only RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates data concurrency issues across Internet databases by requiring the creation of duplicate autnums. 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source: RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data. I’d like to seek input from the group; - Do you feel these options are straight forward and easy to understand? - Does this provide a reasonable security posture? - Will this make a positive impact for RIPE DB and the greater Internet? - Do you support these concepts? Thanks, William Db-wg co-chair

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October
by denis walker 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Hi Tim Thanks for working through this in time for the RIPE Meeting. It may not be the last word on "abuse-c:" but it will please a lot of people. cheersdenisco-chair DB WG From: Tim Bruijnzeels via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 16:21 Subject: Re: [db-wg] Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October Dear Working Group, Whois release 1.90 has now been deployed to production. Kind regards Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Software Engineering and Senior Technical Officer RIPE NCC > On 27 Sep 2017, at 10:28, Tim Bruijnzeels via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October > Date: 27 September 2017 at 10:26:44 GMT+2 > To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > Dear working group, > > RIPE Database Release 1.90 was deployed to the Release Candidate Environment, last week on 22 September 2017. If no issues are raised, we plan to deploy this version to production on Monday 16 October 2017 > > Release 1.90 introduces the following main features in support of NWI-7 (abuse-c implementation): > > = Allow adding an "abuse-c:" attribute to INET(6)NUM and AUT-NUM objects > = Disallow adding "abuse-c:" to object types other than ROLE, INET(6)NUM and AUT-NUM > > Release 1.90 contains a number of small improvements: > > = Make org-name validation case-sensitive (no longer consider case changes a no-op) > = Support to remove generated AUT-NUM "remarks:" regarding legacy status > > The complete list of other minor issues solved by this release can be found here: > https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/blob/master/changes.txt > > Please let us know if you see any issues with this release in the RC environment. > > Kind regards > > Tim Bruijnzeels > > Assistant Manager Software Engineering and Senior Technical Officer > RIPE NCC > > >

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October
by Tim Bruijnzeels 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Dear Working Group, Whois release 1.90 has now been deployed to production. Kind regards Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Software Engineering and Senior Technical Officer RIPE NCC > On 27 Sep 2017, at 10:28, Tim Bruijnzeels via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October > Date: 27 September 2017 at 10:26:44 GMT+2 > To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > Dear working group, > > RIPE Database Release 1.90 was deployed to the Release Candidate Environment, last week on 22 September 2017. If no issues are raised, we plan to deploy this version to production on Monday 16 October 2017 > > Release 1.90 introduces the following main features in support of NWI-7 (abuse-c implementation): > > = Allow adding an "abuse-c:" attribute to INET(6)NUM and AUT-NUM objects > = Disallow adding "abuse-c:" to object types other than ROLE, INET(6)NUM and AUT-NUM > > Release 1.90 contains a number of small improvements: > > = Make org-name validation case-sensitive (no longer consider case changes a no-op) > = Support to remove generated AUT-NUM "remarks:" regarding legacy status > > The complete list of other minor issues solved by this release can be found here: > https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/blob/master/changes.txt > > Please let us know if you see any issues with this release in the RC environment. > > Kind regards > > Tim Bruijnzeels > > Assistant Manager Software Engineering and Senior Technical Officer > RIPE NCC > > >

1 0

Re: [db-wg] DB signatures
by Job Snijders 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Thanks Tim!

1 0

Re: [db-wg] DB signatures
by Tim Bruijnzeels 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Dear Aliaksei, working group, The split files, and all other content of the ftp site, are also available on https: https://ftp.ripe.net/ https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ They have been available here for quite a while but I realise that this was not widely announced, nor documented. I will make sure that documentation is updated. The files are generated using a snapshot of data at midnight CEST - but take over 2 hours to complete - because we have to filter out personal data. Because this is resource intense, and because there may be scripts out there running at various times in the day and expecting to retrieve the ‘midnight’ snapshot, I am not keen on increasing the frequency unless it’s clear that there is great demand for this. Dependent on your needs the NRTM service may also be a fit for you: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/nrtm-mirroring Kind regards, Tim Bruijnzeels > On 16 Oct 2017, at 11:30, Horváth Ágoston János via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > From: Horváth Ágoston János <horvath.agoston(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [db-wg] DB signatures > Date: 15 October 2017 at 12:22:03 GMT+2 > To: Aliaksei Sheshka <sheshkaoss(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "db-wg(a)ripe.net >> Database WG" <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > The gzip format already contains checksum. > Signing is a different issue. But the first question one might ask is > why this data is still offered through FTP. Using https would also > make most of the signing requirements obsolete. > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg > <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Aliaksei Sheshka <sheshkaoss(a)gmail.com> >> To: db-wg(a)ripe.net >> Cc: >> Bcc: >> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:01:56 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [db-wg] DB signatures >> I assume time stamps are UTC, ftp shows 10/12/17, 10:12:00 PM, now it is Fri Oct 13 22:57:17 2017 UTC >> I would say 24h+ update for such data is too much. >> Also having signatures / checksums is a standard security measure for any downloads and are very easy to implement. >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:58 PM, denis walker <ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Aliaksei >>> >>> The files are regenerated daily. There are some checks done on the files as part of the generation process, like zero size check or size difference more than some percentage from yesterday. Perhaps the RIPE NCC can comment on the possibility of signing or checksum files? >>> >>> cheers >>> denis >>> co-chair DB WG >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> >>> To: db-wg(a)ripe.net >>> Sent: Friday, 13 October 2017, 19:45 >>> Subject: [db-wg] DB signatures >>> >>> Hello! >>> >>> I would like to know if there is a plan to sign / checksum files located at >>> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ ? >>> Currently there is no mechanism to know if files aren't tampered or corrupted. >>> >>> My second question is how often those files are updated? >>> >>> Thanks!

1 0

Re: [db-wg] DB signatures
by Horváth Ágoston János 15 Oct '17

15 Oct '17

The gzip format already contains checksum. Signing is a different issue. But the first question one might ask is why this data is still offered through FTP. Using https would also make most of the signing requirements obsolete. On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Aliaksei Sheshka <sheshkaoss(a)gmail.com> > To: db-wg(a)ripe.net > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:01:56 -0400 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] DB signatures > I assume time stamps are UTC, ftp shows 10/12/17, 10:12:00 PM, now it is Fri Oct 13 22:57:17 2017 UTC > I would say 24h+ update for such data is too much. > Also having signatures / checksums is a standard security measure for any downloads and are very easy to implement. > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:58 PM, denis walker <ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Hi Aliaksei >> >> The files are regenerated daily. There are some checks done on the files as part of the generation process, like zero size check or size difference more than some percentage from yesterday. Perhaps the RIPE NCC can comment on the possibility of signing or checksum files? >> >> cheers >> denis >> co-chair DB WG >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> >> To: db-wg(a)ripe.net >> Sent: Friday, 13 October 2017, 19:45 >> Subject: [db-wg] DB signatures >> >> Hello! >> >> I would like to know if there is a plan to sign / checksum files located at >> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ ? >> Currently there is no mechanism to know if files aren't tampered or corrupted. >> >> My second question is how often those files are updated? >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> > >

1 0