January 2021 - db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Webupdates UI bug?
by Cynthia Revström 11 Mar '21

11 Mar '21

Hi DB-WG, When creating a new object via webupdates, it selects IRT objects too in addition to the maintainers that are connected to the SSO account. This ofc doesn't work, and you just get an error, but it might be somewhat confusing and should probably be fixed. -Cynthia

2 4

Deprecation of whitepages
by denis walker 01 Feb '21

01 Feb '21

Colleagues Way back in 2008 it was suggested that the RIPE Database could be used for linking people well known within the network operating industry. The concept of 'whitepages' was introduced. This was an ORGANISATION object (ORG-PAGE1-RIPE) with 'org-type: WHITEPAGES' that could be referenced by PERSON objects to override the automatic deletion of PERSON objects not referenced by any resource object. In today's privacy world, it is a bad idea to use the RIPE Database as a phone book. Currently there are only 4 people whose PERSON object references this ORGANISATION object. (There are also 5 moderators referenced in the ORGANISATION object who have probably long since forgotten they had anything to do with it :) ) I think we should now deprecate this concept. LinkedIn is much more suited to keeping in touch with networking people. Comments appreciated... cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

11 16

"Hidden" historical WHOIS records
by Ronald F. Guilmette 01 Feb '21

01 Feb '21

The Co-Chairman's declaration that my prior post was off-topic for this mailing list... an assertion that I take strong exception to... has at least had the salutary effect of reminding me of a number of what I consider to be "open issues" -- issues which ARE quite unambiguously on-topic for this mailing list, and which I first broached here way back around December 3rd: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2020-December/006736.html At that time and ever since I do not believe that I have seen any resoponse to the clear and pointed questions I posed in the message linked to above. I thus am now obliged to restate and reiterate those still-pending questions. As part of my effort to clarify my goals, vis a vis historical WHOIS transparency, back on December 3rd I threw out what I felt would be a perfectly ludicrous and absurd suggestion, just for retorical purposes, in order to try to make a point. I said something along the lines of "Hey why don't you all just make the entire RIPE WHOIS data base private rather than public?" I felt sure that when I did this that at least some of the denizens of this list... at least the few who might still care about either transparency or accountability... would immediately recognize the utter absurdity of my retorical suggestion, and that those folks, at least, would get up on their hind legs to vigorously protest any such move away from the longstanding and historical open and public nature of the WHOIS data base in all five regions. I was thus shocked and more than a little dismayed to see some of the folks here on this list taking my suggestion as something other than the lame joke and retorical device it was intended to be. Some folks here, it seems, would be entirely fine with hiding literally *everything* from the eyes of outside and independent investigators, including but not limited to me personally -- outside and independent investigators who's only goals are honesty, fairness, and a lack of thievery and self-dealing on the part of RIPE "insiders". I will not mince words. I find this type of position and this type of orientation, in favor of secrecy and against transparency, to be nothing less than shameful. Who does secrecy and darkness help other than the criminal element within the RIPE region? Some of you may still remember the discussion which I engaged in here, on and around December 3rd. For those that do not, the above link may be helpful in refreshing your memories. At that time the subject at hand was the availability, or lack thereof, of access to historical RIPE records, in particular (a) access to records that have since been purged from the data base and also (b) access to the historical versions of various ostensibly "privileged" record types, specifically PERSON, ROLE, and MNTNER records. As noted above, to this day I have never seen an answer to the basic question that I had asked, back on December 3rd about access to either or both of these two broad categories of historical data, and more specifically, who, if anyone, decided or approved, unilaterally or otherwise, the notion that either of these two broad categories of historical data should be made unavailable. Thus, I ask yet again, who made these decisions to hide what was at one time open and public WHOIS data? I certainly do not wish to draw any improper or unjustified inference from the lack of response on this key point, but it quite certainly does seem to be the case, from where I am sitting, that nobody much wants to talk about how these decisions were made, let alone who made them. So, once again: Who exactly decided that these two categories of historical WHOIS records should be unavailable? Was this a decision of the membership and/or the community? Were these decision points / policy points debated openly and fairly, taking into account what may perhaps be multiple divergent views on the matter? Or did certain people in positions of power just make these decisions entirely unilaterally and without ever consulting anyone? I look forward to some clarity here as regards to how these decisions were made and who made them. I hope that others on this list, even if you may disagree with my personal preference for total openness and transparency of the data base, will at least join me in hoping that all -decisions- relating to data base access should at least be made in the clear light of day, and in an open and transparent manner. Regards, rfg P.S. I remind everyone that during the discussion back in early December it was noted that a relevant policy proposal had already been lingering in a state of suspended animation for some years already. Perhaps someone can help me out here. I have been searching for the reference to the specific (still pending?) policy proposal in question but I can't seem to find it now.

4 3

Re: [db-wg] Fwd: [anti-abuse-wg] 196.52.0.0/14 revoked, cleanup efforts needed
by Marco Schmidt 30 Jan '21

30 Jan '21

Dear Nick, Thanks for your email. We are planning a clean-up of these ROUTE objects. As we wanted to avoid deleting any legitimate objects of third parties, we checked with AFRINIC and they have now confirmed that these ROUTE(6) objects can be deleted. We also performed a check on all of the NONAUTH database for any ROUTE(6) objects (using the prefix only), we found 81 routes (out of 56,379) and 37 ROUTE6 (out of 1,568) that are not "allocated", "assigned", "available", "reserved" in any region. We will now inform the object holder and remove these objects. We don’t think a policy is necessary for this work, but we strongly believe we need an approach similar to NWI-5: "Inform the object holder that these IRR object(s) refer to an unallocated space. We will then delete them after a reasonable notification." This gives people time to react in cases of incorrect de-registration. We will initiate a discussion with the other RIRs to find a joint approach on how we deal with similar incidents in the future. We have also looked into publishing a list of deregistered resources and this will require some review internally if we plan to go down that route. A more straightforward approach might be for the RIRs to proactively highlight where we see objects in each others IRRs. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Registry Services Assistant Manager RIPE NCC > From: *Nick Hilliard via db-wg* <db-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:db-wg@ripe.net>> > Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 17:21 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 196.52.0.0/14 > <http://196.52.0.0/14> revoked, cleanup efforts needed > To: Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly(a)ucd.ie <mailto:niall.oreilly@ucd.ie>> > Cc: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:db-wg@ripe.net>>, Mirjam > Kuehne <chair(a)ripe.net <mailto:chair@ripe.net>> > > > Niall O'Reilly wrote on 22/01/2021 09:55: > > Creating a policy seems to me to be too heavy an approach in this case. > > > > I would think that a simple request from the DB WG to the NCC > > should be enough. > > > > If a greater degree of formality were considered necessary, > > a new NWI could be created. > > there are two issues here: the immediate one relates to removal of these > particular objects, but there's a longer term issue of whether the NCC > needs to be asked by the community to delete all objects which are > deregistered from the other LIRs on an ongoing basis. Honestly I would > have thought probably not because this sounds like the sort of thing > that falls into general garbage cleanup, i.e. normal stewardship of > resources. > > Could someone from the NCC clarify what the current situation with this > is? Is this something which is currently dealt with, and if not, could > it be? > > The reverse is also relevant. I.e. the RIPE NCC probably needs to > publish lists of resources which have been deregistered so that other > RIRs / IRRDBs can delete objects which refer to those resources which > date from before the date of deregistration. > > Nick > >

2 1

Re: [db-wg] AFRINIC Audit report
by denis walker 30 Jan '21

30 Jan '21

Hi All Your post, Ronald, also has nothing to do with the RIPE Database. Please contact the webmaster(a)ripe.net if you have some issues with the web site. There is no need for either of you to reply to this email. Let's close this discussion on this mailing list. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 at 00:52, Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io> wrote: > > Hi Denis, > > And what Ronald wrote has something to do with the RIPE database? him crying for not receiving "credits" (for his imagination) in his misery life and crying that he couldn't post a comment in RIPE website ... > > Kind Regards, > Elad > ________________________________ > From: denis walker <ripedenis(a)gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2021 1:38 AM > To: Elad Cohen <elad(a)netstyle.io> > Cc: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net>; db-wg(a)ripe.net <db-wg(a)ripe.net>; Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg(a)tristatelogic.com> > Subject: Re: [db-wg] AFRINIC Audit report > > HI Elad > > As co-chair of the DB-WG I would like to point out that what you are > talking about.has nothing to do with the RIPE Database. Please don't > use this mailing list for these discussions. > > cheers > denis > co-chair DB-WG > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 20:30, Elad Cohen via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > > Yes Ronald, good job for causing Afrinic to spend $150k of their members money for legal expenses that you created with your proofless imaginative theories, and Afrinic will lose due to it, because unlike public perception which is based on "+1's" , in court what count is only facts and data. > > > > and good job by showing us how powerful your friends of spamhaus and ops-trust (https://portal.ops-trust.net/) are, that they can put a sword on the neck of any RIR in order for the RIR to give any head that they will like. > > > > Afrinic with all of their actions and all of their "report", didn't touch the company Cloud Innovation Ltd that didn't purchase legacy netblocks for money, but received two /11's and massive number of /16's for "free" from Afrinic, for the purposes of leasing worldwide, part of them can be seen in the link: https://bgp.he.net/cc#_prefixes > > Maybe it is because that the owner of Cloud Innovation Ltd, knows who to pay, such as Owen DeLong that admitted in Afrinic community-discuss that he received money from Cloud Innovation Ltd and also Owen DeLong wrote in Afrinic community-discuss mailing list the text "Nothing to see here" when people tried to raise questions regarding Cloud Innovation Ltd. > > > > Owen DeLong is a Ops-Trust community member, and also a friend of Ronald Guilmette. > > > > ---- > > > > To remind to you and to everyone, Mr. Jan Vermeulen interfered with the latest RIPE NCC Executive Board elections, by doing it he hurt the rights of all of RIPE community members. > > > > > > Last comment: > > Any ops-trust member or spamhaus university loser, please spare the brainwashing +1's. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: db-wg <db-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 7:20 PM > > To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net>; db-wg(a)ripe.net <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > Subject: [db-wg] AFRINIC Audit report > > > > The following has recebntly been posted to the RIPE web site: > > > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/alun_davies/outcome-of-the-afrinic-audit > > > > I have attempted to lodge the following comment, but apparently my comment > > is being held for review, presumably to insure that it does not contain > > any four letter words, nor any material that might violate GDPR, another > > four letter word. > > > > When I and my journalistic colleague, Jan Vermeulen of MyBroadband.co.za > > began our investigations into this colossal and truly epic malfeasance > > and theft of valuable IPv4 resources in mid 2019, the notion of either > > of us becoming famous or of receiving any credit for unraveling and > > publicly documenting this gigantic scandal was not what motivated us, > > nor has it been, since the beginning. Rather, we merely wished to right > > some wrongs and return to the people of Africa some valuable IP resources > > critically needed for the ongoing development of the Internet in Africa. > > Nonetheless, it would have been, I think, at least minimally respectful > > if either AFRINIC or (now) RIPE had taken a moment to at least mention > > our names and our very evident, abundant, and key contributions towards > > exposing this whole huge mess. Neither organization, it seems, has thus > > far elected to do so publicly. Such is the reward, or lack thereof, of > > a job well done. > > > > > > Regards, > > rfg > >

3 2

AFRINIC Audit report
by Ronald F. Guilmette 30 Jan '21

30 Jan '21

The following has recebntly been posted to the RIPE web site: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/alun_davies/outcome-of-the-afrinic-audit I have attempted to lodge the following comment, but apparently my comment is being held for review, presumably to insure that it does not contain any four letter words, nor any material that might violate GDPR, another four letter word. When I and my journalistic colleague, Jan Vermeulen of MyBroadband.co.za began our investigations into this colossal and truly epic malfeasance and theft of valuable IPv4 resources in mid 2019, the notion of either of us becoming famous or of receiving any credit for unraveling and publicly documenting this gigantic scandal was not what motivated us, nor has it been, since the beginning. Rather, we merely wished to right some wrongs and return to the people of Africa some valuable IP resources critically needed for the ongoing development of the Internet in Africa. Nonetheless, it would have been, I think, at least minimally respectful if either AFRINIC or (now) RIPE had taken a moment to at least mention our names and our very evident, abundant, and key contributions towards exposing this whole huge mess. Neither organization, it seems, has thus far elected to do so publicly. Such is the reward, or lack thereof, of a job well done. Regards, rfg

3 3

Re: [db-wg] Deprecation of whitepages
by Randy Bush 30 Jan '21

30 Jan '21

>>> The DB team maintains this list and will exclude an object on request. >> please exclude all objects i might wish to look up. perhaps i was being too subtle. the original purpose of the whois database was for operators to contact each other for coordination and sharing of exciting events. some of us dinosaurs still use it for these mundane purposes. > Blanket whitelisting won't work it is what we have today. the proposal is to change that. i am trying to understand how this would make my (a paying customer's) job easier. randy

2 1

Fwd: proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:
by Maria Stafyla 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

Hi Denis, all Please allow us some time to look into this and we will get back to you with our feedback next week. Kind regards, Maria Stafyla Senior Legal Counsel RIPE NCC > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: denis walker <ripedenis(a)gmail.com> > Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 15:59 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] Fwd: proposal: new attribute 'geofeed: > To: Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)interall.co.il>, <legal(a)ripe.net> > Cc: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > HI Hank, colleagues > > Whilst I can't answer your basic question, I could say that if the > IETF approves a change to RPSL, with the RIPE Database data model > based on RPSL, in principle we should implement the RPSL change. > > Perhaps another question, to the RIPE NCC legal team, if I have a > fixed IP address or block of addresses, is this geofeed location data > personal data under the terms of GDPR? > > cheers > denis > co-chair DB-WG > > On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 07:01, hank--- via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> I guess I am not understanding something. >> Why do we need a geofeed attribute? What problem are we trying to solve? >> >> I understand why each block of IPs needs to be associated with a >> country, so that certain language specific auto-customizations will >> work. But what purpose is there to know that a /24 is in central >> Amsterdam? Is the purpose to assist marketers in geo-targetted sales? >> Is the purpose for network engineering (not sure what major problem >> we have that needs this)? >> >> Is the purpose to know where you are so that in the event of an >> emergency (terror, tornado, etc) you can get emergency targeted >> alerts? If so, then the geofeed has to be at the /32 level and since >> many if not most IPs are mobile, and that is where you will get the >> alert from - from your cellphone provider, I still don't quite >> understand the reason for a geofeed tag. >> >> Can someone clue me in? >> >> Thanks, >> Hank >> >> Caveat: The views expressed above are solely my own and do not express >> the views or opinions of my employer >> >>

5 5

Fwd: [anti-abuse-wg] 196.52.0.0/14 revoked, cleanup efforts needed
by Nick Hilliard 22 Jan '21

22 Jan '21

196.52.0.0/14 seems to have been revoked by afrinic: > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net " --list-versions 196.52.0.0/14" | grep -i delete > % This object was deleted on 2021-01-16 05:56 > $ Regarding cleanup of route: objects for this this (and other) unregistered address space in the ripe irrdb, can this just be done? Or is it necessary to create a policy to ask the NCC to do it? Nick -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] 196.52.0.0/14 revoked, cleanup efforts needed Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 05:00:49 +0400 From: Ostap Efremov <kkind690(a)gmail.com> To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Hi, 196.52.0.0/14 <http://196.52.0.0/14> was recently revoked. Before it was revoked, the whois for this /14 was: inetnum: 196.52.0.0 - 196.55.255.255 netname: LogicWeb-Inc descr: LogicWeb Inc. descr: 3003 Woodbridge Ave descr: Edison, NJ 08837 country: ZA remarks: ============REMARK==================== remarks: The custodianship of this IP prefix is presently remarks: in dispute. A police investigation is on-going remarks: and AFRINIC reserves the right to remarks: reclaim this IP prefix at anytime. remarks: ============REMARK=================== However, now, this /14 has been revoked by AFRINIC. Do a whois on it and you will see, it's unallocated. I believe this /14 was under control from our big friend from Israel, but I don't remember. This does not matter however. But, sadly there are about 367 ip ranges being announced from this /14 https://pastebin.com/raw/MHaW3nPe From about 71 unique ASN's This is a BOGON, unallocated space. I would appreciate if any network that is on that list and on this mailing list, would stop announcing parts of this hijacked /14. I reached out to RADB to remove all the radb entries concerning this /14, however after 72 hours they still haven't. This is not an ignored ticket, we have escalated internally with our RADb admins and they are looking into it. I will let them know that you are looking for a update and we will provide it as soon as possible. How is it possible that they can't just delete all entries? It is UNALLOCATED SPACE, it shouldn't be routed, it shouldn't have radb. https://www.radb.net/query?advanced_query=1&keywords=-M+196.52.0.0%2F14&-T+… I have also tried to post about this massive source of BOGONS on the nanog mailing list, however, they rejected my posts. Most likely because it possibly concerns "that one guy from Israel", however the nanog moderators refused to comment while continuing to reject my posts. Their self-censorship is very destructive and harmful. I hope that if this list is moderated, I will not have any trouble posting about this issue. Greetings, Ostap.

3 3

Address Assignment Practices in IPv4 and IPv6
by Stephen D. Strowes 21 Jan '21

21 Jan '21

Hi all, We've published a study on the stability of IPv4/IPv6 assignments in domestic ISPs, and the size of the IPv6 prefixes that networks typically assign to subscribers. We look at this from two different angles: what can we measure from RIPE Atlas, and what do operators state in the RIPE Database? In particular, understanding the size of IPv6 delegated prefixes is important for applications such as host reputation & blocklists, geolocation, and research on network measurement. The RIPE Database offers the community a way to share information on their prefix delegations, and deserves some attention! Read more here: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/stephen_strowes/address-assignment-practices-… Cheers, S.

1 0