- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [db-wg] re-evaluate route-object authorisation model
by George Michaelson 27 Jun '15

27 Jun '15

> > > > and note that, with one mouth, job has said that the ripe irr is the > > only one he will trust. > > Unsure if i follow you exactly, but indeed, I only trust the RIPE IRR > when it comes to RIPE managed space. > Why then, do you expect anyone to trust RIPE IRR for all the un-RIPE managed space which can be freely added, to permit RIPE managed space related objects to be made? Surely from a consistency point of view (and yes, its reductionist, but so is software) this means we shouldn't be trusting all the additional objects added 'for your convenience' under the open password maintainer? -G > > Kind regards, > > Job > >

2 1

Re: [db-wg] re-evaluate route-object authorisation model
by snash 27 Jun '15

27 Jun '15

Job Responding to the Questions in your 13 May email, thanks for helping me get up to speed. | - should the authorisation model work differently for RIPE managed | space versus non-RIPE managed space? Should we even continue to | allow route-objects covering non-RIPE managed space? No. Authorisation for an AS to originate a route needs to come from the maintainer of the address space. If the address space is assigned by a different RIR then Creating a Route Object in RIPE should be disallowed. Legacy v4 may need special case, I do not know. However, a global routing information database will need to contain copies of information from other regions, but it would support no modification of the copied records. Mirror only. | - should the authorisation model work differently when creating a | route-object for RIPE managed space with a non-RIPE managed | autnum? If yes, how so? No. We should follow the more recent thinking behind RPKI: "the design of the rpki is that an address resource holder is the sole authority over what ASs may announce that resource", Randy Bush | - although in this idea the autnum owner is no longer required to | approve /creation/ of a route-object, would it be a good idea to | allow the autnum owner to /delete/ any route-object in which their | autnum is referenced as origin? I see no need, since the AS still has the choice whether or not to announce the route. The database grants authority, not compulsion, to announce. | - Is RFC 2725 the only reason why the authorisation model was | implemented as it was implemented, can someone remember practical | reasons for doing it this way? During the BoF it was pointed out | that any potential DoS vector already exists today. Wilfried Woeber's concerns in 2006 seem largely to be about accreditation and authority of what is now the inetnum maintainer. Those concerns may still be valid, and may need addressing, but are not directly related to this discussion. The worst examples of IRR seem to have many exploitable faults independently of this. Our objective is to inspire confidence in RIPE's routing database for use in routing policy, to facilitate the completeness of the routing database by reducing a hindrance to maintaining its correctness, whilst retaining the higher standards adopted in RIPE. Steve Nash

4 5

Re: [db-wg] Temporary origins
by George Michaelson 25 Jun '15

25 Jun '15

For your information, APNIC Hostmasters have moved to a mode of operation where for inetnum owners where the AS holder is not the same person, and a request is lodged with helpdesk for assistance, the hostmasters manually override and create the object for the inetnum holder, only removing it if an AS holder objects. The inetnum holder needs to be recognised in our systems. Its a hand-mediated inetnum-only route object. Previous practice was to wait for explicit approval from the AS holder. Now, its created first, and withdrawn if there is an objection. There have been no complaints. APNIC HM are considering portal changes and other process work to automate this. -George On 25 June 2015 at 21:24, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:17:12PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote: > > Think of the "route" objects in the IRR as "these may be > > announced", not "these *are* being announced", and in a > > transition phase for a prefix (re-homing to another ISP), two > > route objects for the same route will be required. > > ... and there is nothing wrong with that. > > Just to spell it out again very explicitely. > > gert > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >

2 1

Temporary origins
by snash 25 Jun '15

25 Jun '15

At RIPE70, in the DB Workgroup and the Cross Region BoF, there was some discussion of authority to originate a route. There was indication of one major operator's intent to look to the RIPE IRR for validation of OriginAS. In addition to Cross Regional concerns about the correctness and authority to originate, there was also a need to support temporary redirection (change of originAS) mentioned. Temporary redirection is often accomplished by BGP announcement. There was some discussion of the ownership of address-blocks by an AS. RPKI has answered these in ways that are not universally adopted, but do place the authority to originate (ROA) in the responsibility of the "prefix holder" (4), not an AS with which it might normally be associated. rfc 2725 also says, in section 9.4 route objects: "There is a legitimate reason to be in more than one origin AS." I propose that we aim to validate that the IRR database model is consistent with the RPKI model in requiring the authority of the maintainer of the inetnum to originate a route. However RIPE current documentation opposes this, "authorisation for creation of route(6) objects can and must be provided by both the address space holder and the holder of the AS number" (5) . We need to allow for more than one AS to be authorised to announce an origin for a prefix, even though we expect only one originator to announce normally. Multiple Origin AS (MOAS) conflicts occur today and do not appear to cause problems in their own right, as discussed in reference (1). Indeed the motivation for this discussion was to create policy for selecting routes in MOAS cases. I would like to propose for discussion that a basic set of objectives might be: 1. An inetnum is globally unique and has a maintainer that is at least unique to each RIR (perhaps legacy address space may show different maintainers in different RIRs); that maintainer has the responsibility to identify which ASNs are entitled to announce an origin for that inetnum, and to register allowed ASNs in the IRR of that RIR. In this way the authentication of the person and their right to make changes stays within the one RIR. It is of no significance whether the ASNs identified are registered in the same RIR, or not. 2. Clarification, if necessary, that more than one route object for a subnet is permitted, where each RO has a different originAS. I have found no prohibition of multiple route objects for the same subnet. If one exists we should review its merit. 2. Each RIR should feed up its IRR to a global 'read-only' IRR. Alternatively each RIR should provide its IRR to all other RIR so that each may maintain an independent global view. Data structures may also need to be adjusted to accommodate more than one authorised originator. 3. The routing announcements actually made by an AS are the responsibility of the AS-maintainer, and that AS-maintainer should be accountable in cases where the AS announces origin for a subnet for which the AS does not have the authority. If this is useful. Notes: a. More than one route object record with different originAS may be appropriate: - where there is multi-homing without BGP or - where organisations make use of BGP redirection for temporary third-party services, like DDoS mitigation b. rfc 1930 (BCP-6) section 7 says: "Generally, a prefix can should belong to only one AS". The first word indicates that there should be allowance for exceptions. The rfc was written at a time when the relationship between AS number and IP block was much more stable than it is today. c. There seems to me to be some ambiguity about route objects and Origin. rfc 2725, section 9.4 route objects (3) says: "There is a legitimate reason to be in more than one origin AS." But route objects have only one origin field. If multiple route objects pointing to exactly the same subnet are allowed then who has the authority to create route objects? I suggest that the authority should reside with the inetnum maintainer. This makes the origin part of a route object rather than an attribute of inetnum. d. An alternative, might be to require (best practice) that temporary route announcements should prepend the ASN of the owner's AS. But this has an impact on the effectiveness of the announcement in the case of hop-count tie-breaks. References: (1) http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~massey/pubs/conf/massey_imw01.pdf An Analysis of BGP Multiple Origin AS (MOAS) Conflicts {Xiaoliang Zhao, Dan Pei, Lan Wang, Dan Massey, Allison Mankin, S. Felix Wu,Lixia Zhang} (2) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1930 BCP-6 (3) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2725#page-12 (4) http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2011-07/bgpsec.html {Bush & Huston} (5) https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-data… ________________________ Steve Nash CEng MIET Consulting Engineer Arbor Networks office +44 118 967 4917 mobile +44 772 029 1359 http://www.arbornetworks.com/ ________________________

7 7

Temporary origins
by snash 24 Jun '15

24 Jun '15

Thanks for comments. My interest was to continue the discussion that Job hosted at RIPE70, and to get to some guidelines for those that need to exploit temporary redirection with BGP; whether customers or providers of services. Job, thanks for your observation that "the RIPE database supports this, you can create multiple route-objects covering the same prefix but with different "origin:" values.". Randy states agreement. However, this does conflict with some other Internet documents, like BCP-6. That can only be confusing and may inhibit global consensus. If IETF BCP documents are inaccurate then the RIPE community has some responsibility to point it out. The dual authorisation that RIPE requires on a ROUTE object seems an unnecessary hurdle, and gives rise to the cross-border concern that Job raised in the BoF. The consensus from RPKI seems to be that the inetnum maintainer has the authority to grant ROA. I do not know the history of why RIPE asks for AS maintainer also. Is there still some good reason? (If so, I am puzzled that it does not apply to RPKI, but that is a separate discussion). Removing the AS maintainer from the route object Creation authorisation seems to solve the cross-region problem. Are there reasons not to do this? Job mentioned that RaDB seems to have neither authorisation requirement, so creating a global view of the IRR is challenging without policy agreement leading to trust on these things. Summary: 1/ ask IETF to update BCP-6. Is this something RIPE NCC should do? 2/ discuss why AS maintainer authorisation is required for RIPE ROUTE object Creation. I subsequently read the article by Den Is May 2015, which comments that there is no written policy for IRR. Steve

3 2

Personalised authorisation
by Sascha Luck [ml] 19 Jun '15

19 Jun '15

Hi Alex, > Our current proposal allows authorisation on person objects for > those who want it, through maintainer objects Does this mean that calling a maintained object will spit out a reference to a mntner: object which will spit out a ton of references to person: objects which are authorised to make changes on the original object? rgds, Sascha Luck

2 2

[training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
by Training Services 18 Jun '15

18 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the dates for the RIPE NCC Webinars for the coming quarter. These interactive on-line learning sessions take about one hour, and give you the opportunity to learn and interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. In the next 3 months you can participate in the following Webinars: - Advanced RIPE Atlas Usage (NEW!) - Introduction to the RIPE Database - RIPE Database - Advanced Topics - IPv6 in the RIPE Database - IPv6 Addressing Plan - Webinar for New LIRs - Resource Certification (RPKI) Register now at https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have any questions, please email <training(a)ripe.net>. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services

1 0

MD5s of the RIPE database, Deprecation of MD5 and safe authentication methods
by Sascha Luck [ml] 17 Jun '15

17 Jun '15

Sorry for breaking the thread already, wasn't subscribed to this before. IMO there is a lot of work to be done before deprecating passwords. Right now this seems more than a little half-baked: 1) There should most definitely be SSO support for syncupdates. Webupdates, I'm sure, is fine for some but to me it's the most awkward and time-consuming way to make any db change. As far as email is concerned, deprecate that for all I care. I have never used that method in 15 years. 2) There are many issues with using PGP. As someone who makes DB changes for up to 5 LIRs at a time and who does not have a desk with a PC from which all work is done, what am I supposed to do? (On a side note, SSO has made that job so very much easier. If it can be used to authenticate mntners, by all means, please make that possible!) -Use the same privkey for all mntners? Hardly. -put all the privkeys on a USB stick? What if that is lost or stolen? All mntners are now compromised and have to be changed. Hopefully there is a copy of each privkey in some secure location... So, I wouldn't deprecate passwords until there is another option that is as flexible as a simple password. rgds, Sascha Luck

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Publishing Deleted Objects - Legal Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 12 Jun '15

12 Jun '15

Dear Bengt and all, The purpose of the RIPE Database is defined in Article 3 of the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions: ------------------ Article 3 - Purpose of the RIPE Database The RIPE Database contains information for the following purposes: - Ensuring the uniqueness of Internet number resource usage through registration of information related to the resources and Registrants - Publishing routing policies by network operators (IRR) - Facilitating coordination between network operators (network problem resolution, outage notification etc.) - Provisioning of Reverse Domain Name System (DNS) and ENUM delegations - Providing information about the Registrant and Maintainer of Internet number resources when the resources are suspected of being used for unlawful activities, to parties who are authorised under the law to receive such information. - Scientific research into network operations and topology - Providing information to parties involved in disputes over Internet number resource registrations to parties who are authorised under the law to receive such information. ------------------- The RIPE Database Terms and Conditions can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/terms Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Legal Counsel RIPE NCC > From: Bengt Gördén <bengan(a)resilans.se> > Subject: Re: [db-wg] Publishing Deleted Objects - Legal Analysis > Date: 9 Jun 2015 17:12:02 GMT+2 > To: db-wg(a)ripe.net > > Den 2015-06-02 15:36, Athina Fragkouli skrev: >> Dear colleagues, > Hi Athina, > > Thank you for the legal clarification i this matter. > >> In response to the question raised on the Database WG mailing list, >> “…whether there would be legal restrictions or considerations with >> regards to publishing information about deleted objects or the deleted >> objects themselves”, please find below a preliminary analysis from a >> legal perspective. >> >> The RIPE Database contains a variety of types of data. A distinction >> should be made between database objects that contain personal data (i.e. >> person and role objects) and those that do not (i.e. inetnum, inet6num, >> autnum, etc.). >> >> For database objects containing personal data, the Personal Data >> Protection Act in the Netherlands applies. More specifically, according >> to the Act personal data may be collected for specific, explicitly >> defined and legitimate purposes. >> Once collected, this data must not be >> kept for any longer than is necessary to achieve the purpose for which >> it has been collected. >> >> In consultation with the RIPE community, the RIPE Data Protection Task >> Force identified the reason why personal data should be inserted into, >> and made publicly available through, the RIPE Database. The reason the >> Internet community initially requested that this data be made publicly >> available was for Internet operation purposes. Internet network >> operators should have each other’s contact details (which is considered >> to be personal data by the Act) in order to facilitate communication >> among the individuals responsible for networks in case of operational >> problems in the network (troubleshooting, abuse, etc.). >> >> Accordingly, the RIPE Database contains the contact details of >> individuals that are responsible for resolving operational problems in a >> network. However, if an individual no longer has this responsibility, >> this individual’s contact details must be deleted from the RIPE Database. >> >> If the RIPE community wishes to have access to contact details of >> individuals that were responsible for resolving operational problems in >> the past, then the RIPE community must have a specific, explicitly >> defined and legitimate purpose for it. If such a purpose is defined, the >> RIPE NCC will proceed with investigating the conditions under which this >> feature can be implemented in compliance with the Act. Implementation of >> this feature may include prior consent of these individuals. >> >> For more information about the implementation of this legislation in the >> RIPE Database and related services, please see the RIPE NCC Data >> Protection Report [1]. >> >> For database objects that do not contain personal data, there are no >> restrictions in terms of personal data protection. If the RIPE Community >> wishes the RIPE NCC to include the feature for publishing the history of >> deleted objects in the RIPE Database, the RIPE NCC will proceed with the >> implementation of this feature. As part of this process the RIPE NCC >> will need to investigate and possibly update its procedures and >> governance documents to ensure compliance with its legal obligations. >> Updating the relevant governance documents is subject to the RIPE NCC >> procedural document “Adoption Process for RIPE NCC Corporate Documents” >> [2]. > > If we can start out with inetnum, inet6num, aut-num, route, route6 and organisation it's good so far. > > I have a question about the word "purposes" of the text. Denis also mentions "purposes" in his e-mail. Are these "purposes" defined somewhere in a RIPE document or is it a legal definition that must be applied to what we believe is the "purpose" of an object? > > regards, > > -- > > Bengt Gördén > Resilans AB > >

1 0

Publishing Deleted Objects - Legal Analysis
by Athina Fragkouli 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, In response to the question raised on the Database WG mailing list, “…whether there would be legal restrictions or considerations with regards to publishing information about deleted objects or the deleted objects themselves”, please find below a preliminary analysis from a legal perspective. The RIPE Database contains a variety of types of data. A distinction should be made between database objects that contain personal data (i.e. person and role objects) and those that do not (i.e. inetnum, inet6num, autnum, etc.). For database objects containing personal data, the Personal Data Protection Act in the Netherlands applies. More specifically, according to the Act personal data may be collected for specific, explicitly defined and legitimate purposes. Once collected, this data must not be kept for any longer than is necessary to achieve the purpose for which it has been collected. In consultation with the RIPE community, the RIPE Data Protection Task Force identified the reason why personal data should be inserted into, and made publicly available through, the RIPE Database. The reason the Internet community initially requested that this data be made publicly available was for Internet operation purposes. Internet network operators should have each other’s contact details (which is considered to be personal data by the Act) in order to facilitate communication among the individuals responsible for networks in case of operational problems in the network (troubleshooting, abuse, etc.). Accordingly, the RIPE Database contains the contact details of individuals that are responsible for resolving operational problems in a network. However, if an individual no longer has this responsibility, this individual’s contact details must be deleted from the RIPE Database. If the RIPE community wishes to have access to contact details of individuals that were responsible for resolving operational problems in the past, then the RIPE community must have a specific, explicitly defined and legitimate purpose for it. If such a purpose is defined, the RIPE NCC will proceed with investigating the conditions under which this feature can be implemented in compliance with the Act. Implementation of this feature may include prior consent of these individuals. For more information about the implementation of this legislation in the RIPE Database and related services, please see the RIPE NCC Data Protection Report [1]. For database objects that do not contain personal data, there are no restrictions in terms of personal data protection. If the RIPE Community wishes the RIPE NCC to include the feature for publishing the history of deleted objects in the RIPE Database, the RIPE NCC will proceed with the implementation of this feature. As part of this process the RIPE NCC will need to investigate and possibly update its procedures and governance documents to ensure compliance with its legal obligations. Updating the relevant governance documents is subject to the RIPE NCC procedural document “Adoption Process for RIPE NCC Corporate Documents” [2]. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Legal Counsel RIPE NCC [1] https://www.ripe.net/about-us/legal/ripe-ncc-data-protection-report [2] https://www.ripe.net/about-us/corporate-governance/adoption-process-for-rip…

4 5