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@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
Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 21/09/2020 09:47:
inetnum: 57.224.0.0 - 57.255.255.255
Wasn't the whole of 57.0.0.0/8 registered to SITA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IPv4_address_blocks 57.0.0.0/8 RIPE NCC 1995-05 Formerly SITA. Nick
In message <5f5f77f8-c211-7c45-e8aa-b873fdbb0ac2@foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 21/09/2020 09:47:
inetnum: 57.224.0.0 - 57.255.255.255
Wasn't the whole of 57.0.0.0/8 registered to SITA?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IPv4_address_blocks
57.0.0.0/8 RIPE NCC 1995-05 Formerly SITA.
Thank you Nick. I guess that (mostly) clears up the mystery. I'm not sure that the created date should be altered however when an existing block, legacy or otherwise, is simply shrunk, as appears to have happaned in this case. Doing that could cause confusion.
Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 22/09/2020 03:13:
I'm not sure that the created date should be altered however when an existing block, legacy or otherwise, is simply shrunk, as appears to have happaned in this case.
the better long-term fix might be to make network block history available on the whois server. Nick
Just for my understanding, do you need a policy for the NCC to offer "whowas[1]" service? [1] https://www.apnic.net/static/whowas-ui/# Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 19:55, Nick Hilliard via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 22/09/2020 03:13:
I'm not sure that the created date should be altered however when an existing block, legacy or otherwise, is simply shrunk, as appears to have happaned in this case.
the better long-term fix might be to make network block history available on the whois server.
Nick
Aftab Siddiqui wrote on 22/09/2020 12:30:
Just for my understanding, do you need a policy for the NCC to offer "whowas[1]" service?
I wouldn't see why that was necessary tbh. There's already a good deal of historical information in the ripedb about previous versions of objects, which means there's already a precedent in place for exposing historical assignment / allocation history. It's just the information that's exposed isn't complete. Nick
In message <CAK5YLgeGEP3obAZNArvVVvzHE3upR2dbyfZQ1gMwX-HLyydHyg@mail.gmail.com>, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:
Just for my understanding, do you need a policy for the NCC to offer "whowas[1]" service?
I guess that my answer would be "no". As a general matter, and barring any complications, such as are present in the case of 57.224.0.0/11, historical RIPE WHOIS records are and have been available, and I have even written my own little tool to fish them all out with respect to any given IPv4 CIDR... at least those that have not undergone a death & rebirth. In short, I am generally a satisfied customer already with respect to RIPE WHOIS historical records, and I am very glad that these are easily available. It is only in these rather rare and unusual circumstances, such as what pertains to the history of the 57.224.0.0/11 block, when the data I see is not quite what I was expecting. But I don't think it would be a worthwhile expenditure of NCC staff time to work on something just to insure that rfg is not occasionally flummoxed. If they have an excess of free time then I can quite certainly dream up a number of much more valuable pursuits for them, in particular, insuring that every number resource record in the data base has a corresponding org: and that every organisation: record has a country: The latter issue still causes me much difficulty on a regular basis. Regards, rfg
Colleagues Just to be clear the "created:" attribute relates to an 'object' not to a 'resource'. So in this case the creation date has not been changed. This is a new object and the "created:" attribute reflects the date this object was created. The main issue with historical data in the RIPE Database is that no history is available for deleted objects. NWI-10, which is in the process of being implemented, will add a "country:" attribute to all ORGANISATION objects referenced by resource objects and will be maintained by the RIPE NCC. cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG On Tuesday, 22 September 2020, 13:57:01 CEST, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: In message <CAK5YLgeGEP3obAZNArvVVvzHE3upR2dbyfZQ1gMwX-HLyydHyg@mail.gmail.com>, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote:
Just for my understanding, do you need a policy for the NCC to offer "whowas[1]" service?
I guess that my answer would be "no". As a general matter, and barring any complications, such as are present in the case of 57.224.0.0/11, historical RIPE WHOIS records are and have been available, and I have even written my own little tool to fish them all out with respect to any given IPv4 CIDR... at least those that have not undergone a death & rebirth. In short, I am generally a satisfied customer already with respect to RIPE WHOIS historical records, and I am very glad that these are easily available. It is only in these rather rare and unusual circumstances, such as what pertains to the history of the 57.224.0.0/11 block, when the data I see is not quite what I was expecting. But I don't think it would be a worthwhile expenditure of NCC staff time to work on something just to insure that rfg is not occasionally flummoxed. If they have an excess of free time then I can quite certainly dream up a number of much more valuable pursuits for them, in particular, insuring that every number resource record in the data base has a corresponding org: and that every organisation: record has a country: The latter issue still causes me much difficulty on a regular basis. Regards, rfg
In message <491424982.3720509.1600777786877@mail.yahoo.com>, "ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk" <ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Just to be clear the "created:" attribute relates to an 'object' not to a ' resource'. So in this case the creation date has not been changed. This is a new object and the "created:" attribute reflects the date this object was created. The main issue with historical data in the RIPE Database is that no history is available for deleted objects.
Yes.
NWI-10, which is in the process of being implemented, will add a "country:" attribute to all ORGANISATION objects referenced by resource objects and will be maintained by the RIPE NCC.
I, for one, am certainly looking forward to that. In fact I would be happy to provide some assistance to staff in regards to that, if called upon. In the absence of country: fields for ORGs, I have already worked out my own automation which is able to correctly infer an ISO-3166 two-letter country code in most cases, based upon clues contained within the existing records. I will be only too happy to share that upon request. I should also mention however that I find one small bit of ISO-3166 itself objectionable. This calls for the territories known as her majesty's kingdom of Great Britian & Northern Ireland to be designated as "GB", which I personally find to be more mentally evocative of Gibraltar. Thus, I personally prefer the even more widely used designation "UK" to refer to these geographical areas. But I'm sure NCC staff will make an appropriate choice of designation in these cases, and I and my scripts can certainly abide either choice. Regards, rfg
Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 22/09/2020 20:41:
I should also mention however that I find one small bit of ISO-3166 itself objectionable. This calls for the territories known as her majesty's kingdom of Great Britian & Northern Ireland to be designated as "GB", which I personally find to be more mentally evocative of Gibraltar. Thus, I personally prefer the even more widely used designation "UK" to refer to these geographical areas.
this sounds like an ideal opportunity for you to take this up with the ISO, as national political issues are out of scope for the RIPE DB-WG! Nick
In message <82fe09b3-087b-fbeb-4367-4ccebeeb3430@foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote on 22/09/2020 20:41:
I should also mention however that I find one small bit of ISO-3166 itself objectionable. This calls for the territories known as her majesty's kingdom of Great Britian & Northern Ireland to be designated as "GB", which I personally find to be more mentally evocative of Gibraltar. Thus, I personally prefer the even more widely used designation "UK" to refer to these geographical areas.
this sounds like an ideal opportunity for you to take this up with the ISO, as national political issues are out of scope for the RIPE DB-WG!
Ummm... How can I say this most succinctly? Don't hold your breath. There are multiple reasons why THAT won't happen. For one, I am not even a European, let alone a Briton, and thus have no legitimate standing to even have any opinion on the matter which such an august body as ISO would have any obligation to pay any heed to. For another, it would be my guess that even such a simple thing as a two-letter ISO designator would, in this specific instance, be utterly fraught with complexities, not least of which being political ones. No sir! You shall not suck this parochial & naive American into thick debates over the unresolved issues of the cross-border flow of goods and persons on the Irish island post-Brexit! It's all too confusing of a conundrum for my wee little noggin. Regards, rfg
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 01:07:10PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
this sounds like an ideal opportunity for you to take this up with the ISO, as national political issues are out of scope for the RIPE DB-WG!
Ummm... How can I say this most succinctly?
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. ;-) Best, Piotr -- Piotr Strzyżewski
In message <20200923071702.GA5107@hydra.ck.polsl.pl>, Piotr Strzyzewski <Piotr.Strzyzewski@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. ;-)
Yes, but the world's record for longevity of "phased-out" TLD's has got to go to the .SU domain. Nearly 29 years and counting, proving once again that bad ideas never die once they gain a foothold on the Internet. Regards, rfg
participants (5)
-
Aftab Siddiqui -
Nick Hilliard -
Piotr Strzyzewski -
ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk -
Ronald F. Guilmette