- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Whois Release 1.100
by Edward Shryane 22 Apr '21

22 Apr '21

Dear Working Group, RIPE Database release 1.100 has been deployed to the Release Candidate environment. We plan to deploy to production on Thursday 22nd April. This release includes the following main changes: * Separate email address and leading/trailing space during Punycode conversion (#782) * Use status index during update validation (#725) * Fixed aut-num attribute managed flag in lookup and search response (#749) * Added client flag to API for proxying requests (#728) * RDAP nameserver not implemented (#711) * Fixed delete object bug (#723) In addition to other small improvements and bug fixes. 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

Cleanup of route(6) objects in the RIPE NONAUTH database using unregistered space
by Edward Shryane 20 Apr '21

20 Apr '21

Dear colleagues, In response to the recent discussion on "196.52.0.0/14 revoked, cleanup efforts needed", I'd like to propose a regular automated cleanup of route(6) objects in the RIPE-NONAUTH database using unregistered space. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC Problem Definition ------------------ When an RIR deregisters IPv4/IPv6 address space, any route(6) objects in the RIPE-NONAUTH database using that address space are not cleaned up (deleted). Solution Definition ------------------- Once a day, compare route(6) IPv4/IPv6 prefixes in the RIPE-NONAUTH database against the combined delegated stats from all RIRs. Only route(6) prefixes that are "allocated" or "assigned" in any RIRs delegated stats should remain in the RIPE NONAUTH database. If a prefix is "available" or "reserved" then it is considered to be unregistered, and any associated route(6) objects will be eligible for deletion. If a prefix is partially "available" or "reserved" then it is also considered to be unregistered. If a prefix is not listed in any RIRs delegated stats, that prefix is skipped. The origin AS status is not considered, only the IPv4/IPv6 prefix. If a newly unregistered prefix is discovered, first allow a grace period of 1 week. This allows time for mistakes in the delegated stats to be corrected. After 1 week, contact the route(6) maintainer(s) to notify them that the route(6) object will be deleted. After a further 2 weeks, delete the route(6) object. A maintainer can request the RIPE NCC to exclude a route(6) prefix from deletion (for example, the deregistration of the prefix is being disputed). For any excluded prefixes, any associated route(6) objects will not be deleted. Impact Analysis ------------------ There are approximately 738 routes (out of 56,230) in the RIPE-NONAUTH database using a prefix with status "available" or "reserved" in an RIRs delegated stats, which will be eligible for deletion. There are approximately 94 route6's (out of 1,564) in the RIPE-NONAUTH database using a prefix with status "available" or "reserved", so also eligible for deletion. There are approximately 64 routes and 37 route6's with a prefix not listed in any RIR's delegated stats. These will not be affected. When this cleanup is implemented, the backlog of route(6) objects eligible for deletion will be processed at the same time, leading to a large amount of emails to affected maintainers. Once this backlog is processed, the number of route(6) objects affected is expected to be low.

2 1

RIPE Database Requirements Task Force BoF, 5 May 2021
by Bijal Sanghani 15 Apr '21

15 Apr '21

Dear all, The RIPE Database Requirements Task Force (DBTF) will organise its third BoF on Wednesday, 5 May 2021 from 16:00-17:30 (UTC+2) via Zoom. During this BoF, the DBTF will present its latest recommendations and discuss open issues. More information and joining details are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf/bof-5-may-2021 Kind regards, Bijal on behalf of the DBTF

1 0

RIPE Database - Historical Information
by Bijal Sanghani 14 Apr '21

14 Apr '21

Dear colleagues, As part of our work in the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force (DBTF), we are trying to understand if providing historical data is one of the requirements the RIPE Database must fulfil. Currently some attributes are filtered out to limit the exposure of unnecessary personal data. If providing historical data is a requirement the RIPE Database must fulfill, we will recommend the RIPE NCC to examine if additional filtering can be applied to limit further the unnecessary exposure of personal data in attributes that are not meant to contain personal data. We are looking specifically for arguments pro or against this recommendation. We’ll then discuss each argument with the task force and make a decision. Kind regards, Bijal on behalf of the DBTF

3 3

RIPE Database - Legal Address
by Bijal Sanghani 14 Apr '21

14 Apr '21

Dear colleagues, As part of our work in the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force (DBTF), we are trying to evaluate if we should recommend that the RIPE NCC publish the legal address of resource holders in the RIPE Database. It will include everybody that is directly receiving resources from the RIPE NCC. This information is already stored in the RIPE Registry but not available in the RIPE Database. However it’s good to note that since the implementation of NWI-10, a new attribute was added to the ORGANISATION object with the Country Code for the country in which the resource holder is legally based. As a reminder, this is our current recommendation: “The task force recommends that the legal address of resource holders who are legal persons be published in the RIPE Database. This will clarify which organisation holds which Internet number resources and ensure quick action from incident responders such as CSIRTs and LEAs in case of abuse.” The task force is aware that there are legal and technical constraints attached to this recommendation. The main challenge is to find a system that can clearly separate natural and legal persons across our service region, so that the privacy of natural persons in the RIPE Database is respected. This also includes corner cases such as SMEs using their home addresses as their legal addresses. We are looking specifically for arguments pro or against this recommendation. We’ll then discuss each argument with the task force and make a decision. Kind regards, Bijal on behalf of the DBTF

3 2

RIPE Database - PERSON Objects
by Bijal Sanghani 14 Apr '21

14 Apr '21

Dear colleagues, As part of our work in the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force (DBTF), we are trying to understand where there is a requirement to keep allowing PERSON objects to be created. We have received arguments for both pro and against this and we propose the following recommendation: promote ROLE objects instead of PERSON objects but still make it possible for users to create PERSON objects. We want to recommend the RIPE NCC to implement stricter checks and measures to prevent users from unknowingly entering personal data in both object types. We are looking specifically for arguments pro or against this recommendation. We’ll then discuss each argument with the task force and make a decision. Kind regards, Bijal on behalf of the DBTF

1 0

Comments on RIPE Database requirements progress
by denis walker 09 Apr '21

09 Apr '21

Colleagues For the benefit of those who don't often check the mail archives of the RIPE Database Task Force there have been 4 meetings in February and March with 3 sets of minutes published so far on their mail archive which can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-db-requirements-tf/ The chairs really appreciate the work done by the TF and acknowledge that it is a long and complex task. I have read through these last sets of minutes and feel some things need to be clarified. It may just be language but the minutes suggest the TF has or will make decisions on a number of items, rather than decisions on their recommendations for these items. As it says in their charter "The task force is a small and focused drafting team of up to six persons and not a representative body....Consensus building will take place in the appropriate RIPE working groups". Up to now there has been very little discussion in any working group and certainly no consensus on any of the issues raised as yet. I see the TF making a number of very important recommendations which can then be discussed publicly in appropriate WGs to see if there is a consensus. Let me try to clarify or question some specific issues from recent minutes. I am doing this here, rather than privately with the TF as I have done in the past, as I feel more public discussion is needed on this document the TF is producing. "The task force also discussed what will happen after their final report is published. They agreed that the implementation of the requirements could be delegated to the relevant working groups but mentioned that it will be up to the RIPE Chair team to decide what to do next with it." This implies that the requirements, as suggested by the TF, 'will be' implemented and that the implementation details 'could be' delegated to WGs. The requirements and recommendations themselves, from the TF, need to be discussed in WGs to see if the community even agrees with them. That needs to happen before any discussion on possible implementation. "Ed asked if the task force was considering to make a recommendation regarding assignments as it seems to drive the creation of a lot of unmaintained objects (especially PERSON objects). The task force replied that they were working on a recommendation dealing with assignments but didn’t reach a final decision yet." Firstly it should not be possible to create any unmaintained objects in the database now. If creating assignments is causing too much personal data to be entered into the database it may be the issue of personal data that needs to be addressed. The issue of assignments (whether or not they are needed) should not be confused with that of personal data. These two issues should be considered completely separately. "They [TF] also decided to only publish a final draft ahead of RIPE 82 and skip the publication of an intermediate draft." This is unfortunate as it again reduces community discussion and the chances for the community to offer any feedback to the TF to be incorporated into the final draft. "The task force discussed Randy and Denis’s recent comments on the db-wg mailing list about NWI-2 [historical data]. Ed mentioned that this was one final call from Denis to see if there are any interest from the community to move NWI-2 forward. As the task force is already working on this topic, Ed proposed to inform the db-wg that they can close NWI-2. The task force agreed." The NWIs are action points on the DB-WG. It is for the co-chairs to decide on these action points based on discussion and consensus by the WG members. The issue of historical data queries has been on and off the agenda of the WG for a number of years. I am sure the members of the DB-WG will have more to say yet on this issue. There have been many individual comments. The key to resolving this issue is to get all interested parties to discuss it, openly, at the same time. "The task force decided to keep the current baseline [registration] information data" I presume you mean 'the TF recommends keeping...'. There has been no discussion in any WG on changing this registration data so no consensus either way as yet. "The task force didn’t get enough information and arguments from the questionnaire survey results to decide whether or not the legal address of resource holders should be published in the RIPE Database. The task force will therefore ask the community via email to get more feedback on this topic before making a decision." Again this is an important issue which cannot be decided behind closed doors, based on private comments to a non representative body. There are some major issues in this list of points. In an open, transparent, bottom up, community driven industry these issues can only be decided by open discussion and consensus within WGs. We all welcome the recommendations put forward by the TF but they are by no means final decisions on these issues. They will be the starting points for open, public discussion leading to community consensus. In the meantime, please feel free to comment on and discuss publicly on this WG mailing list any issues regarding the TF draft requirements document which can be found here https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf/the-ripe-datab… cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

3 2

RIPE Database requirements progress
by denis walker 08 Apr '21

08 Apr '21

Colleagues For the benefit of those who don't often check the mail archives of the RIPE Database Task Force there have been 4 meetings in February and March and the TF has just published the minutes of their most recent meeting on their mail archive which can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-db-requirements-tf/ Their latest draft requirements document can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf/the-ripe-datab… It would be helpful if more people would read this document and comment or discuss publicly on this WG mailing list any issues regarding the TF draft document before they publish their final version of the requirements. They also plan to hold a BOF sometime in May where you can make comments. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Cleanup of route(6) objects in the RIPE NONAUTH database using unregistered space
by Edward Shryane 31 Mar '21

31 Mar '21

Hi Cynthia, Thanks for your support, my proposal is to automatically delete route(6) objects using de-registered prefixes from the NONAUTH database. For example, this would apply to the routes using the revoked 196.52.0.0/14 prefix which was discussed in January. If there is no objection from the DB-WG, I'd like to turn this proposal into a Numbered Work Item. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC > On 31 Mar 2021, at 07:36, Cynthia Revström <me(a)cynthia.re> wrote: > > Hi Ed, > > I am not sure if this was something to discuss or just something you wanted to mention. > > Anyways as I saw this while looking through older emails, this sounds like a good idea to me. > > -Cynthia > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021, 15:07 Edward Shryane via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:db-wg@ripe.net>> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > In response to the recent discussion on "196.52.0.0/14 <http://196.52.0.0/14> revoked, cleanup efforts needed", I'd like to propose a regular automated cleanup of route(6) objects in the RIPE-NONAUTH database using unregistered space. > > Regards > Ed Shryane > RIPE NCC > > > > Problem Definition > ------------------ > When an RIR deregisters IPv4/IPv6 address space, any route(6) objects in the RIPE-NONAUTH database using that address space are not cleaned up (deleted). > > > Solution Definition > ------------------- > Once a day, compare route(6) IPv4/IPv6 prefixes in the RIPE-NONAUTH database against the combined delegated stats from all RIRs. > > Only route(6) prefixes that are "allocated" or "assigned" in any RIRs delegated stats should remain in the RIPE NONAUTH database. If a prefix is "available" or "reserved" then it is considered to be unregistered, and any associated route(6) objects will be eligible for deletion. > > If a prefix is partially "available" or "reserved" then it is also considered to be unregistered. > > If a prefix is not listed in any RIRs delegated stats, that prefix is skipped. > > The origin AS status is not considered, only the IPv4/IPv6 prefix. > > If a newly unregistered prefix is discovered, first allow a grace period of 1 week. This allows time for mistakes in the delegated stats to be corrected. > > After 1 week, contact the route(6) maintainer(s) to notify them that the route(6) object will be deleted. > > After a further 2 weeks, delete the route(6) object. > > A maintainer can request the RIPE NCC to exclude a route(6) prefix from deletion (for example, the deregistration of the prefix is being disputed). For any excluded prefixes, any associated route(6) objects will not be deleted. > > > Impact Analysis > ------------------ > There are approximately 738 routes (out of 56,230) in the RIPE-NONAUTH database using a prefix with status "available" or "reserved" in an RIRs delegated stats, which will be eligible for deletion. > > There are approximately 94 route6's (out of 1,564) in the RIPE-NONAUTH database using a prefix with status "available" or "reserved", so also eligible for deletion. > > There are approximately 64 routes and 37 route6's with a prefix not listed in any RIR's delegated stats. These will not be affected. > > When this cleanup is implemented, the backlog of route(6) objects eligible for deletion will be processed at the same time, leading to a large amount of emails to affected maintainers. Once this backlog is processed, the number of route(6) objects affected is expected to be low. > > >

1 0

Re: [db-wg] db-wg Digest, Vol 113, Issue 1
by Tyrasuki 25 Mar '21

25 Mar '21

I approve implementation of this, and already use geofeeds in "remark" attributes. I've not seen much movement about this in a while so i think it might be a good idea to bring up again. Has there been any further discussion anywhere about this? \- Jori (Tyrasuki) \-------- Original Message -------- On Jan 4, 2021, 4:18 AM, < db-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > > Hi Job and db-wg, > > > > > I just want to start out by saying that I think this is a very worthwhile endeavour IMO, and thank you Job for reminding me of this thread. :) > > > > > I have also written some opinions about your questions and ideas below, and I would like to hear some input from people on the WG as this is sort of my initial thoughts but have not been thoroughly considered. > > > > > > Why not use the RPKI to distribute geofeed information? > > > > > I think using RPKI for this will make it needlessly complicated for people to use. I think we want to make this as simple as possible for someone to find. > > > > > To me it seems like it might be a good idea to add it as an attribute in the RIPE DB and then additionally having some like the HTTP API for finding abuse contacts but for geofeed ( https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/wiki/WHOIS-REST-API-abuse-contact ). > > > > > > What downsides/risks/challenges down the road might exist? > > > > > As I noted in the comment above, I think the main challenge will be to make it simple and basic enough to implement for people wanting to publish geofeed URLs and people wanting to fetch geofeed URLs. > > I think having a basic HTTP JSON API to get this URL would really help with implementation as it would be really easy for data consumers to query for the URL and not have to parse WHOIS data or read RDAP RFCs or whatever. > > > > > Additionally, WHOIS is not encrypted/authenticated (which HTTPS/TLS is) and as such while the risk for malicious activity here might be low, I think having it authenticated would help (as in making sure you get the URL that the resource holder provided, not that the data in there is necessarily correct). > > > > > I think that if this is implemented, only HTTPS urls should be allowed, as in no plain text HTTP. (I don't have very strong feelings but it seems reasonable to me) > > > > > And on the note of the main challenge, I also think a part of making it simple to implement is to try to have the same API for this between all of the RIRs, because I don't think this will really succeed if only RIPE NCC has it. > > I think that if the RIPE NCC implements this, the next step will be to try to coordinate this with other RIRs so it can be a workable system for all RIRs. > > > > > > Will this be the final and full solution to GeoIP challenges? > > > > > I would say that this is probably not something that can easily be figured out other than by implementing it and waiting for a few years. > > > > > > Have any of the GeoIP aggregators/vendors responded to the 'geofeed:' initiative? What do the likes of amazon/google/maxmind think of the format? > > > > > I am also very curious about this, in particular to what the people wanting to use this data think of it (aka google, amazon, etc). > > I don't think maxmind is likely to approve of it as it basically destroys their product if successful. > > > > > Additionally I think this would be quite useful if it succeeded as if I recall correctly, the BBC uses the delegated list files on [ftp.ripe.net][] for GeoIP. > > This sort of became problematic when the whole delegated list file country code has to correspond to legal address thing happened, as this broke for some cases. > > > > > \- Cynthia > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 7:30 PM Job Snijders via db-wg <[db-wg(a)ripe.net][db-wg_ripe.net]> wrote: > > > > Dear DB-WG chairs, > > > > Today an acquaintance (who works at an ISP) reached out to me describing > > some annoying Geo IP location issues they were facing. > > > > I thought to myself "didn't we have a solution to such issues?" and was > > reminded of this thread. > > > > Chairs, how do we proceed to work towards the deployment of this new > > RPSL 'geofeed:' attribute? What is the next step? > > > > strawman problem statement for NWI process: > > > > "Associating an approximate physical location with an IP address > > has proven to be a challenge to solve within the current constraints > > of the RIPE database. Over the years the community has choosen > > to consider addresses in the RIPE database to relate to entities in > > the assignment process itself, not the subsequent actual use of IP > > addresses after assignment. > > > > The working group is asked to consider whether the RIPE database can > > be used as a springboard for parties wishing to correlate > > geographical information with IP addresses by allowing structured > > references in the RIPE database towards information outside the RIPE > > database which potentially helps answer Geo IP Location queries." > > > > Outstanding questions to the group & authors of the geofeed draft: > > > > \- What would the RDAP integration look like? (as per George: ideally > > WHOIS and RDAP stay aligned) > > \- Why not use the RPKI to distribute geofeed information? > > \- What downsides/risks/challenges down the road might exist? Will > > this be the final and full solution to GeoIP challenges? > > \- Have any of the GeoIP aggregators/vendors responded to the > > 'geofeed:' initiative? What do the likes of amazon/google/maxmind > > think of the format? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Job > > > > [ftp.ripe.net]: http://ftp.ripe.net [db-wg_ripe.net]: mailto:db-wg@ripe.net

2 1