September 2022 - db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Using the RIPE Database for IPAM
by denis walker 04 Oct '23

04 Oct '23

Colleagues Do you use the RIPE Database as your IPAM solution? If so, read on.... The RIPE NCC has done a brief review of the recommendations made by the DB Task Force (DBTF). You can find it here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf/initial-analys… There is one point in the summary that I disagree with: One recommendation can be implemented immediately by the RIPE NCC: - 3. Using the RIPE Database as an IPAM solution The recommendation from the DBTF was: "The task force recommends limiting and discouraging the use of the RIPE Database as an enterprise IPAM solution." This has not yet been discussed by the community and there is no consensus on this recommendation. So the RIPE NCC should not be doing anything to implement this recommendation. There are a number of points relating to this. The first BoF held by the DBTF had 46 participants. They had some polls about IPAM: Where do you hold your canonical IP address assignment details? (13 answers) Internal database or IPAM system (5 - 38%) RIPE Database (5 - 38%) Internal database for detailed assignments and RIPE database for allocations (3 - 23%) What should we do about the IPAM use of the RIPE Database? (12 answers) We should discourage it (3-25%) We should tolerate it but provide restrictions and best practices (5-42%) We should promote it and facilitate it (4-33%) During the BoF some comments were also made on this: Shane's comment "IPAM seems to be an important thing" Nathalie said about 50% of people attending training courses over a number of years said they use the RIPE DB for IPAM. Also trainees said open source IPAM solutions often pull data out of the RIPE DB but have no functionality to push data to the RIPE DB. During the presentation by the DBTF in the DB-WG session at RIPE 83 Shane said (on IPAM): "if you had very light requirements for IPAM then maybe it is OK, but it's not really what it's for" "unable to find out if this [response] was based on misunderstanding of the question" "we think there are probably good ways to go forward with that, for example making hooks so that external IPAM solutions can hook into it...that makes sense, there are certainly many commercial vendors that make IPAM products who would be happy to use hooks, there are many ways that third parties could use this but probably not a requirement" So it looks like there are very mixed views on the use of the RIPE Database for IPAM. Some people also expressed surprise that so many people use the database for IPAM. It is clear that we don't actually understand who, how and why people use the database for IPAM. We need a better understanding of the how and why and the number of users doing this before we can make any decision about discouraging or encouraging this use of the database. Even to consider if IPAM should be defined as a purpose of the database. As we are talking about it, maybe now is the time to start this discussion. If you use the RIPE Database as your IPAM solution maybe you can offer some more details. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

5 5

NWI-14 Authenticating References to Objects
by denis walker 19 Jun '23

19 Jun '23

Colleagues The chairs propose creating NWI-14 for expanding the optional use of the "mnt-ref:" attribute to protect objects from accidental or intentional mis-representation of responsibility. See slide 14 of this presentation for the problem definition: https://ripe78.ripe.net/presentations/129-RIPE78-Operational-Update.pdf We ask the RIPE NCC to add NWI-14 to the list. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

3 4

Recognisition of Kosovo and adding of LIR signup options with Kosovo as well as XK in inet(6)num
by William Weber 17 Nov '22

17 Nov '22

Hi, As the Netherlands recognise the Republic of Kosovo as sovereign nation (see 1), and the EU does as well (see 2) there should be a way to include the proposed 2 letter country code (XK, see 3) as option for inet(6)num objects. The EU and other multinational organisation (IMF, SWIFT etc., see 4) use this code already since independence in 2008, and it is the currently reserved ccTLD for Kosovo as well. Kosovo also has a unique phone number prefix assigned (+383) by the ITU (see 5). It makes no sense that EU and AP is available (which are not countries, AP is not even in ISO-3166-2), but XK is not. I am aware the the X* series of codes is reserved and not permanently assigned, however UN Security Council resolution 1244/99 (see 6) mandates the use binding to all UN members. Please let me know how to bring in a draft resolution to adopt the ability to use Kosovo as legitimate country option in RIPE database objects, as well as the LIR sign up. It is the ONLY country that is recognised by both the Netherlands and the EU that cannot be used to sign up as a LIR and my client - a Telecoms company in Pristina that wants to stay anonymous at this time to avoid issues with Serbia - feels their right is violated by having to use either Serbia or Albania as billing location, and sees uncertainty in applicable laws and taxation with this. Thank you, William Weber (LIR Portal user: william(a)william.si, multiple LIRs managed) 1: https://web.archive.org/web/20080430070042/http://www.minbuza.nl/en/news/ne… Kosovo.html 2: https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/countries/detailed-country-i… 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2#User-assigned_code_elements 4: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary… 5: https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/02/02/T02020000FD0001PDFE.pdf 6: https://www.nato.int/kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm

13 22

RIPE Database Service Criticality Questionnaire
by denis walker 10 Oct '22

10 Oct '22

Colleagues [Apologies to Job for copying your email from the Routing WG but you explained it well :) ] The RIPE NCC has asked the Database WG Chairs to facilitate a working group conversation on framing the RIPE Database service subcomponents in terms of criticality. At the bottom of this email is a form that focuses on three components: confidentiality, integrity and availability. Each component is split into three questions (a, b, and c), a total of 9 questions are being put forward to the working group. We envisage this process to be a public consultation: WG participants can submit (free-form) responses, and also chime in by replying to each other's responses; hopefully bringing us to a degree of consensus in the coming weeks. We believe this is a unique opportunity to help the RIPE NCC! The goal is to help the RIPE NCC develop a deeper understanding of how the moving parts fit together, which in turn helps decide where and how to invest resources. >>> Your feedback is much appreciated! <<< cheers, denis, William DB WG co-chairs ----------------------- FORM STARTS HERE ----------------------- Service Criticality Form - RIPE Database Introduction ------------ This form is used to gather input from the community on the service criticality of the RIPE database. The framework is detailed in https://labs.ripe.net/author/razvano/service-criticality-framework/ The service criticality has three components: * Confidentiality What is the highest possible impact of a data confidentiality -related incident (data leak)? * Integrity What is the highest possible impact of a data integrity -related incident (hacking)? * Availability What is the highest possible impact of a service availability -related incident (outage)? All our services are designed with at least 99% availability, so please consider outages of up to 22 hours. Service Purpose --------------- The RIPE Database is the public internet registry for the RIPE NCC region, comprised of: * Internet Number Registry * Internet Routing Registry * Reverse Delegations The critical parts of the service are: * Query (Port 43, REST API, NRTM, Web Application) * FTP dumps (whole database and split files) The non-critical part of the service is: * Update (REST API, Mailupdates, Syncupdates) Service Criticality ------------------- Please review the following three areas. (1) Global Routing Incident Severity * Low (No / negligible impact) * Medium (One or a few ASes are unavailable) * High (Many ASes in a region are unavailable) * Very High (Global Internet routing disruptions) Please rate the incident severity (Low to Very High) in the following three areas. Please explain why. (a) Confidentiality (Impact level of incidents such as data leaks) (b) Integrity (Impact level of incidents such as hack attempts) (c) Availability (Impact level of service outage incidents, up to 22 hours per quarter) (2) IP addresses and AS Numbers Incident Severity * Low (No / negligible impact) * Medium (Local disruptions (registration information not being available for some entities)) * High (Regional disruptions (registration information not being available for the RIPE NCC region)) * Very High (Global disruptions (lack of registration information for all AS Numbers and IP addresses)) Please rate the incident severity (Low to Very High) in the following three areas. Please explain why. (a) Confidentiality (Impact level of incidents such as data leaks) (b) Integrity (Impact level of incidents such as hack attempts) (c) Availability (Impact level of service outage incidents, up to 22 hours per quarter) (3) Global DNS Incident Severity * Low (No / negligible impact) * Medium (Local disruptions) * High (Regional disruptions) * Very High (Global disruptions) Please rate the incident severity (Low to Very High) in the following three areas. Please explain why. (a) Confidentiality (Impact level of incidents such as data leaks) (b) Integrity (Impact level of incidents such as hack attempts) (c) Availability (Impact level of service outage incidents, up to 22 hours per quarter)

2 2

Whois Release 1.104
by Edward Shryane 10 Oct '22

10 Oct '22

Dear Colleagues, RIPE Database release 1.104 has been deployed to the Release Candidate environment. We plan to deploy to production on Monday 10th October. This release includes the following main changes: * Allow Grouping (-G) flag in Whois Search API (#1077) * cidr0 notation for rdap response (#1068) * Remove whois tags (#1059) * Added text/plain to Search and REST APIs (#1054) * Add comment not NOOP (#1052) * Do not allow comments in managed attributes (#1045) * Use documentation prefix 192.0.2.0/24 (#1044) * Organisation country: is modifiable for end-user orgs without RIPE NCC resources (#1041) * Do not return deleted versions (#1015) * Redirect empty requests to syncupdates help (#1011) The release notes are on the website: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/release-notes/ripe-database-rel… More information on the Release Candidate environment can be found on our website: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/release-notes/rc-release-candid… Please let us know if you find any issues with this release in the RC environment. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 1

RIPE Database Quarterly Planning Q4 2022
by Edward Shryane 26 Sep '22

26 Sep '22

Dear colleagues, We have published our quarterly plans for Q4 2022 for the RIPE Database: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/quarterly-planning In this quarter, we will start implementing the RDAP cidr0 and NRO profiles. We are also continuing work on the Service Criticality framework and on the RIPE database documentation. We hope that by providing these plans, we can better inform the community of the ongoing developments on the RIPE Database and get feedback on our work. If you have comments or questions around this, we hope you'll let us know on the list or you can always contact the DB team directly at ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net . Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 0

NWI-13 Geofeed Legal Analysis
by Maria Stafyla 26 Sep '22

26 Sep '22

Dear colleagues, Following the legal update we provided on NWI-13: Geofeed at the DB WG session at RIPE 84, here is our analysis in case further discussion on this topic is needed. Executive Summary: -The RIPE Database is meant to contain specific information for its documented purposes. -Information inserted in the geofeed attribute could in some cases qualify as personal data. -The current purposes could explain geolocation information to be inserted only for ‘scientific research into network operations and topology’. -This purpose does not justify the processing of personal data; therefore restrictions had to be put in place to avoid the processing of unnecessary personal data. -The restrictions are now implemented based on the status of the registration. -If the purposes of the RIPE Database have changed in the meantime, this should be established via the community processes and documented. In that case we will re-evaluate the situation and the need for restrictions. Until then, the restrictions remain necessary. Legal Analysis: The RIPE Database is meant to contain specific information for the purposes that are defined in the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions. In terms of the _personal data_ inserted in there, the purpose that justifies its publication is to facilitate the coordination of network operations for the smooth and uninterrupted operation of Internet; this purpose explains why contact details of resource holders or their appointed contact persons are required. Before any new type of personal data is permitted to be inserted in the RIPE Database, we must evaluate if their processing is required for the purposes already defined and their processing can be considered in line with the basic personal data processing principles. Although it is the responsibility of the party inserting personal data to ensure that they have the appropriate legal grounds before doing so, the RIPE NCC has also shared responsibilities with regards to the personal data in the RIPE Database. This is because the RIPE NCC is the party that is making the RIPE Database available and implements the instructions given by the RIPE community. As mentioned in the Legal Review Impact Analysis, if the geofeed attribute is inserted for registrations of assignments that are reasonably assumed to be related to one individual user, then the attribute will be considered as containing personal data and GDPR will apply. This is why we have proposed to implement restrictions. These restrictions are essential to avoid any processing of personal data that is not required or necessary for the *currently defined* purposes of the RIPE Database and to limit the RIPE NCC's liability as a party with shared responsibilities in relation to the personal data inserted in the RIPE Database. Regarding the _(non-personal) data _inserted in the RIPE Database, it is also paramount that only data that is needed for the defined purposes of the RIPE Database is inserted. According to the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions, introducing the geofeed attribute (with restrictions) would be considered in line and acceptable to be used only for scientific research into network operations and topology (see Art. 3). We also understand that the purposes the RIPE Database must fulfil are not static but evolve over time. The RIPE Database Requirements Task Force has recently concluded its work and, with regard to geolocation, it has established that, although there is an active user group for geolocation data, geolocation itself is not an objective that the RIPE Database should fulfil. If the community's interests have changed since then and it is now agreed that geolocation is one of the purposes the RIPE Database must fulfil, this should be decided via the community's processes and reflected in the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions. In line with the data management principles proposed by the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force, it would be prudent to approach this issue holistically, taking into account that other geolocation information is already provided in the RIPE Database (i.e. geoloc, country code attributes in ORG and resource objects). On the basis of a new purpose for the geolocation information, we could then reassess the situation to understand whether the restrictions on the geofeed attribute are still necessary or whether it is justified to process personal data for this purpose. Kind regards, Maria Stafyla Senior Legal Counsel RIPE NCC

16 44