- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

NWI-8 LIR´s SSO Authentication Groups
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 15 Apr '19

15 Apr '19

Colleagues I think we have now agreed on these problem and solution definitions: Problem Definition LIRs would like a mechanism to easily add/remove users to centralised SSO authentication groups for maintaining objects in the RIPE Database. Solution Definition Stage 1 -Non billing Users listed in an LIR´s portal account will be contained in a default authentication group -Non billing users added or removed through the portal UI will be automatically adjusted in this group -This authentication group can be referenced in MNTNER objects by a new authentication method -These authentication groups for LIRs will be stored in a way that updates to the RIPE Database is not dependent on the availability of the portal service Stage 2 -Non billing Users listed in an LIR´s portal account can be added to and removed from user defined SSO authentication groups -Each User can be a member of any number of named groups -The authentication groups can be configured using the portal UI -These groups can be referenced in MNTNER objects by the new authentication method The chairs will now ask the RIPE NCC to work from these definitions in preparing their implementation plan. cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG

2 1

NWIs update
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 10 Apr '19

10 Apr '19

Colleagues We would like some feedback on the following NWIs and their current status. I would also like to remind colleagues that we have posted a couple of questions on the Address Policy WG mailing list about policy requirements for contact details. We would appreciate some feedback on those questions on that mailing list. cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG NWI-7 abuse-c implementation If the RIPE NCC can confirm that the cleanup of PERSON, ORGANISATION, MNTNER and IRT objects has been done to remove any "abuse-mailbox:" attributes and the 'person' keyword has been updated to take account of the "abuse-c:", we would like to mark NWI-7 as 'Finished'. NWI-8 LIR´s SSO Authentication Groups We agreed on this problem definition: Problem DefinitionLIRs would like a mechanism to easily add/remove users to centralised SSO authentication groups for maintaining objects in the RIPE Database. Do we agree on this (staged) solution definition?(Draft) Solution Definition Stage 1 -Non billing Users listed in an LIR´s portal account, who have an SSO authentication account, will be contained in a default authentication group -Non billing users added or removed through the portal UI, who have an SSO authentication account, will be automatically adjusted in this group -This authentication group can be referenced in MNTNER objects by a new authentication method -These authentication groups for LIRs will be stored in a way that updates to the RIPE Database is not dependent on the availability of the portal service -(Non billing users who did not have an SSO authentication account who then create one, will be automatically adjusted in this group - NCC, is this feasable?) -(Non billing users who are listed in the LIR's authentication group who then delete their SSO authentication account, will be automatically adjusted in this group - NCC, is this feasable?) Stage 2 -Non billing Users listed in an LIR´s portal account, who have an SSO authentication account, can be added to and removed from user defined SSO authentication groups -Each User can be a member of any number of named groups -The authentication groups can be configured using the portal UI -These groups can be referenced in MNTNER objects by the new authentication method NWI-9 In-band notification mechanism? ???Is there a wish to create this issue as an NWI with the following problem definition? Problem DefinitionThere is a need within the routing community to have changes to all/nominated routing data objects in the RIPE Database pushed out to them, regardless of membership status.

9 25

Call for Presentations / Draft Agenda RIPE78 - Database Working Group
by William Sylvester 08 Apr '19

08 Apr '19

Dear Working Group Members, Below is the proposed agenda for the Database Working Group for RIPE78. If you would like to present please submit your content as soon as possible to the chairs. If you have any questions, comments, or requested changes please let the chairs know. Best regards, William & Denis DB-WG Chairs A. Introduction - 5 min * Welcome * Scribe * Jabber * Agenda B. Operational Update RIPE Database – 50 mins Edward Shryane, RIPE NCC C. Proposed Presentation HERE – 10 mins D. NWI - Open Proposals – 5 mins Z. AOB (open discussion)

1 0

NRTM Open access
by Cynthia Revström 03 Apr '19

03 Apr '19

Hello db-wg, This is sort of a follow up on a previous discussion. I would just like to say that in a project I am working on as a volunteer I would like to have NRTM, but really we can't mess around with the agreements and such for how NRTM currently is at RIPE. So I would really like the NRTM access to be open. Because if you look at it like this, you can very easily download the entire database that is updated every 24h, but not get NRTM access which is the same but realtime. How does this make sense? - Cynthia

1 0

personal data...next step?
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 25 Mar '19

25 Mar '19

Colleagues I made a presentation at RIPE 77 last year about personal data in the RIPE Database. Whilst I have been thinking a lot about this since then, and some other comments have been made on different mailing lists recently, no action has yet been considered. This is not a trivial issue to fix and there are a number of points to consider. It will most likely require some semantic changes to the RIPE Database, and possibly the internal Registry Database and member portal may need some changes, as well as some work to be done by resource holders. It may also be an appropriate moment to review the requirements for contacts and contact data in both databases. The optimal solution is to manage the changes necessary to be compliant with privacy laws and practices with the least technical changes and work required by resource holders within a reasonable time frame. I see two approaches to doing this, a lightweight and a heavyweight option. The lightweight option is for myself, working with a couple of members who are interested in finding solutions for this issue, to look at all the concerns, raise points with the community for clarification and work towards a policy proposal on personal data in the RIPE Database. The heavyweight option is to set up a task force to look at the whole issue surrounding contacts and personal data, consider possible solutions and report back to the community at a future RIPE Meeting. My personal preference is for the lightweight option. Whilst it is an issue suitable for a Task Force to consider, history shows that Task Forces often take years to reach conclusions and workable solutions. The previous Data Protection Task Force met for 3 years and the recent Accountability Task Force has been meeting for over 2 years, whilst BCOP has been in operation for more than 5 years. I feel this issue needs a solution implementing this year. I would like to hear opinions from the community on which way to go.... cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG

4 4

In-band notification mechanism?
by Aris Lambrianidis 24 Mar '19

24 Mar '19

Dear all, Back in the day, RFC1996 introduced the NOTIFY mechanism in DNS, which significantly helped with information propagation delay, as it facilitated the transition from a pull (poll) to a push (interrupt) model. The problem we, as AMS-IX, are facing is quite similar when it comes to polling the RIPE database for changes. This seems inefficient. Although the analogy breaks down quickly, as there are no RIPE database "clients" similar to DNS slave servers parsing NOTIFY messages, we would love to see any RIPE API created or extended, or any other mechanism implemented by which a client "registers interest" for any objects it wants to be notified of changes. As a simple example, if we were to "register interest" (e.g. via a REST POST or PUT method) for the AS-AMS-IX-SET as-set object, we would be programmatically notified whenever the "last-modified" field of the as-set was changed. Based on the above, I have 3 questions: 1. Does something like what is described above already exist? 2. If it doesn't exist, would others be interested on such functionality? 3. If it doesn't exist, while knowing that this is only a high level overview of the concept and many details are missing, is this generally feasible? Kind regards, Aris Lambrianidis AMS-IX

7 20

Database website supporting the template and verbose flags on the query page again
by Ivana Svonja 15 Mar '19

15 Mar '19

Dear Working Group, we have now restored support for the template (-t) and verbose (-v) flags to the query page on the Database website: https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/query <https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/query> Regards Ivana Svonja RIPE NCC

1 0

Personal Data in the RIPE Database - next step
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 11 Mar '19

11 Mar '19

Colleagues All the responses made indicated a preference for the lightweight option to move forward. Elvis Velea and James Kennedy indicated that they are interested in working with myself on a policy proposal. We will make a start on this and bring some issues to the community as we go along that need a wider viewpoint. cheersdenisco-chair DB-WG

1 0

as-set object(s) to declare AS value frameworks
by Niels ten Oever 08 Mar '19

08 Mar '19

Dear Database WG, Recent public debates on the ethics and social implications of digital technology, as well as the feedback I received on my presentation at RIPE77 [0], have stimulated me to think more about how value frameworks can inform routing decisions. Based on the analysis of several discussions in the IETF community [1], the ICANN community [2], and the recent book by David Clarke [3], I thought a voluntary declaration of values might be relevant for discussion in the RIPE community. A way of doing this could be the discussion of the introduction of two AS-SET objects in the routing database. This could enable Autonomous Systems to declare the values frameworks they adhere to. An example of possible objects would be: [object0] as-set: AS-GDPR remarks: members of this set declare to be compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union mbrs-by-ref: ANY [/object0] [object1] as-set: AS-UNGP remarks: members of this set declare to have adopted and implemented the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights mbrs-by-ref: ANY [/object1] Members of these sets would declare to live up to these values. Based on these sets, other AS-es could, for example, choose to preferentially route via AS-es that are member of (one of) these sets. These value frameworks (the GDPR and UNGPs) were chosen because these are widely known and adopted standards in our community [4], so the understanding of these values should not be subject to a lot of interpretation and discussion. Do you think this would be a reasonable approach, and if so, would you consider becoming a member of (one of) these sets? Or do you think there are better ways to achieve this? Looking forward to hear what you think. Best, Niels PS I posted a similar e-mail to the routing WG to discuss the routing implications of this proposal. Please accept my apologies if this is considered as cross-posting, but I thought both aspects of this proposal might be interesting to discuss. [0] https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2113/ [1] For instance in the discussions on RFC1958, RFC3935, RFC6873, RFC7258, and RFC8280 [2] Most notably resulting in the addition of a commitment to human rights during the IANA transition, but of course as well during the extensive WHOIS discussions [3] https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/designing-internet [4] For instance SIDN has engaged in a Human Rights Impact Assessment https://www.sidn.nl/a/over-sidn/mensenrechten-daar-voldoen-we-toch-aan , and Cisco, Ericsson, Google, NTT, Orange, AT&T, IBM and many others have adopted the UNGPs - Cisco https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/cisco-systems-0?keywords=cisco - Ericsson https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/ericsson-0?keywords=ericsson#a117755 - Google https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/google-0?keywords=google - NTT https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/nippon-telegraph-and-telephone-ntt-… http://www.ntt.co.jp/csr_e/report.html - Orange https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/orange-0 - AT&T https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/att-0?keywords=AT&T - IBM https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/ibm-0?keywords=IBM -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3

2 1

personal data...next step?
by Jetten Raymond 04 Mar '19

04 Mar '19

Hi, I would prefer the lightweight option as well. Rgds, Ray

2 1

Whois Release 1.93
by Edward Shryane 04 Mar '19

04 Mar '19

Dear Working Group, RIPE Database release 1.93 has been deployed to the Release Candidate environment. If no issues are found, we plan to deploy to production on Monday, 25th February. Release 1.93 includes the following main changes: * Improved email address validation. * Do not allow expired public keys to authenticate updates, and expire signed messages after 1 hour. * Validate bogon space in route(6) creation. * Warn the user if the resource abuse-c is identical to the organisation's abuse-c. * Allow use of elliptic curve algorithm in key-cert objects (updated cryptography library). * Fixed NRTM client parsing end of stream comment in keepalive mode. * Filter out comment in autocomplete API (used by the DB web application) * Only validate reserved words in primary key on create, so existing objects can be updated. * Database schema changes for 2017-02 Abuse-c Validation implementation. The complete list of changes in this release can be found in GitHub: https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/blob/master/changes.txt The release notes will also be published shortly: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/release-notes 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 2

Whois Release 1.92.6.2
by Edward Shryane 01 Mar '19

01 Mar '19

Dear Working Group, RIPE Database release 1.92.6.2 was deployed to production yesterday evening, with a single change from the previous 1.92.6 release. Following the Database downtime on 22 February, this change restores the Full Text Search functionality. More information on the downtime can be found on our website: https://www.ripe.net/support/service-announcements/ripe-database-full-text-… We apologise for any inconvenience caused by this incident. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 0

No more personal objects in the RIPE Database?
by Hans Petter Holen 23 Feb '19

23 Feb '19

Following Denis’s presentation at the last database working group meeting and Elvis’s messages to the RIPE NCC members list I think it is time to have a new discussion on the need for personal objects in the RIPE Database. https://ripe77.ripe.net/presentations/63-PERSONobjects.pdf https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2298/ https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2019-February/00329… This is not questioning previous legal assessments of GDPR compliance, but taking a step back and looking at how would we do this if we were to design the RIPE Database with today's privacy requirements in mind. The ccTLD for .NO, Norid made an update to their service last year to completely remove person objects from their database. https://www.norid.no/uploads/2017/12/Datamodell-revidert-en-v2.pdf In terms of the RIPE Database, that would mean that resources would refer to organisational objects and roles, not to personal objects. Perhaps Denis and/or Elvis would propose a policy change in this respect? Hans Petter

3 3

Re: [db-wg] Idea: magic mntner for all LIR contacts
by Tore Anderson 19 Feb '19

19 Feb '19

* Aleksi Suhonen > On 03/12/2018 10:35, Tore Anderson via db-wg wrote: >> So I was thinking: is this mandatory and error-prone duplication of work >> really necessary? Wouldn't it be possible to instead have some kind of >> magic mntner object that is is kept automatically up to date with «auth: >> SSO»-attributes for all the LIR user accounts? > > I second this idea. Perhaps this should be a different object type tho, to make it clear that editing the magic maintainer by hand will have undesired results. It should be interchangeable with normal maintainers of course, a bit like person objects and role objects are. Or maybe just expand the existing SSO attribute to accept a RegID. For example: mntner: FOOBAR-MNT auth: SSO no.foobar Which would allow maintenance by all registered user accounts in LIR no.foobar (except for accounts with the «billing» privilege level). > Do you want someone to co-author a PDP on this? I was hoping that a PDP wouldn't be necessary, to be honest. That is, if the NCC thought it was a good idea they could just go ahead and implement it. (If I recall correctly, the «auth: SSO» functionality was added without there being a community policy demanding it.) That said, if you want to write a proposal to this effect I'd be happy to put my name on it. Tore

9 44

Proposal for restricting authentication concerning use of revoked and expired GPG ID's in key-cert objects
by Christoffer Hansen (Lists) 11 Feb '19

11 Feb '19

Dear DB WG, It came to my attention the RIPE NCC Database does not do validation of signed updates. (Other than checking the key is allowed to sign updates for object(s) in question) I got the understanding from writing to DB-WG-Chairs this was a decision made years back. I think is less than optimal from a security perspective an signed update (with GPG and/or X509 certs) is not validated against (1) when the update was signed (E.g. signing was done 10 minutes ago) and (2) that the expiration date for the keys are not validated. Usually I will expect if I revoke a GPG-key|X509-cert. It cannot be used any more. But the RIPE NCC Database does still allow this currently. This is relevant in the case I ever lose a private GPG-key|X509-cert to less than friendly 3rd-parties. And the lost private GPG-key|X509-cert is the one used for signing updates to the database. What I have in mind. Is the RIPE NCC Database begins verifying validity (not revoked and/or expired) of GPG-key|X509-cert used to sign updates with. Christoffer

7 10

Certain sponsored? ASNs without sponsoring-org
by Cynthia Revström 08 Jan '19

08 Jan '19

So I have now run across several ASNs in which the org is of type "OTHER" yet there is no sponsoring-org, could this please be clarified? Example ASNs: AS200358, AS204842 If it is like I think it is, it must be that they have lost their sponsors but if that is the case, I would like to see a remark that is an "RIPE NCC managed value" saying something like "This ASN does not have any sponsor since YYYY-MM-DD". I am not entirely sure on this but something to clarify what is going on. Kind regards, Cynthia Revström

5 9

usage of LIR-PARTITIONED status
by Marco Schmidt 20 Dec '18

20 Dec '18

Hello Alex, Allow me to provide some additional clarification. As Gert has already correctly explained, the status LIR-PARTITIONED is used to partition allocations. For inetnum objects with the status ALLOCATED PA, you can create more specific objects with the status LIR-PARTITIONED PA. The same applies for PI. However there are no inetnums with the status ALLOCATED PI in the RIPE Database, and such ranges are no longer provided by the RIPE NCC. Recently, consensus was reached on a policy change to remove the status ALLOCATED PI and LIR-PARTITIONED PI from the RIPE IPv4 Policy document. https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-03 Following this policy change, we will also remove this status from the RIPE Database code and documentation shortly. I hope this clarifies things. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

usage of LIR-PARTITIONED status
by Alexander Stranzky 19 Dec '18

19 Dec '18

Hello, recently I stumbled upon some less-used status of the INETNUM object, namely LIR-PARTITIONED PA & LIR-PARTITIONED PI. Since there is no difference in the docs (https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-data…), can anyone tell me when to use PA and when PI? Cheers, Alex -- velia.net Internetdienste GmbH * Hessen-Homburg-Platz 1 * 63452 Hanau Geschäftsführer: Franz G. Köhler, Arek Akilli * AG Hanau * HRB 7588 Tel: +49 6181 1898119 * http://www.velia.net

2 1

Idea: magic mntner for all LIR contacts
by Tore Anderson 03 Dec '18

03 Dec '18

Hi, I'm starting to lose count of how many times I've made changes to the User Accounts list on the LIR Portal, but forgot to update our mntner object to add/remove the corresponding «auth: SSO foo@bar»-attributes. So I was thinking: is this mandatory and error-prone duplication of work really necessary? Wouldn't it be possible to instead have some kind of magic mntner object that is is kept automatically up to date with «auth: SSO»-attributes for all the LIR user accounts? Tore

1 0

Re: [db-wg] IRR and Hurricane Electric and RIPE
by Peter Courtney 13 Nov '18

13 Nov '18

thank you for the advice, much appreciated but all sorted now by Net Solutions Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

Re: [db-wg] IRR and Hurricane Electric and RIPE
by Peter Courtney 13 Nov '18

13 Nov '18

thank you Christoffer, I am now well on my way to sorting this out with Net Solutions Europe, we will see what tomorrow brings, thank you for the advice Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

IRR and Hurricane Electric and RIPE
by Peter Courtney 13 Nov '18

13 Nov '18

First Message on here, please go easy as I am learning every day, just recently a number of our customers have been complaining that they cannot get on to various web sites, so I sent an email to HE, and got this reply back Hello Teledesign AS41614 and your BGP Query Looks like you do not have valid IRR entries for some entries. http://irrexplorer.nlnog.net/search/91.204.244.0/24 says "Prefix is in DFZ, but NOT registered in any IRR You are NOT getting routed to the whole Internet. From BGP.HE.NET https://bgp.he.net/AS41614#_prefixes You should have GREEN check mark next to the prefixes. From route-views.oregon-ix.net: route-views>sh ip b 91.204.244.0/24 l | i 1299 route-views> Please ensure all of your prefixes have valid IRR entries. It seems these may be getting filtered by remote networks. Documentation is available here, but you essentially need to create a route object with your ASN as the origin http://fcix.net/whitepaper/2018/07/14/intro-to-irr-rpsl.html =================================================== could anyone help me find a simple "How To Document" that I can follow and do what HE are asking me to do, or is it something I can ask RIPE to do on my behalf thanks in advance to all Peter ( newbie sysadmin ) Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

2 2

Re: [db-wg] [Ext] [address-policy-wg] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
by Töma Gavrichenkov 05 Nov '18

05 Nov '18

Hi Leo, Just to make it 100% clear for me: do you mean to say that you support my proposal No. 2? пн, 5 нояб. 2018 г., 23:12 Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda(a)icann.org>: > Hi, > > Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > > [...] > > > > When an End User has a network using public address space this > > > _must_ be registered separately with the contact details of the End > > > User. Where the End User is an individual rather than an > > > organisation, the contact information of the service provider may > > > be substituted for the End Users. > > [...] > > > All in all, RIPE-708 6.2 is a perfect example of an imperfect > > policy, too strict and too vague at the same time. Which is bad, > > because a) some ISPs would just prefer to ignore it, no matter > > the "must", and would be paying less attention to other "musts" > > they would encounter in other policy documents, b) those ISPs > > who would choose to be responsible about RIPE DB usage risk > > losing customers and wouldn't be able to defend their attitude > > against the customers, let alone courts, based on the RIPE DB > > policy. > > Over 20 years ago, the ISP at which I worked had a number of customers > with home networks using public IP address space. The ISP placed its own > contact information in the RIPE Whois Database with a comment that the > address space was assigned to an individual customer. > > If I remember correctly this was done for two key reasons: > > 1. RIPE policy does not override the law of the land. > 2. There was very little value in placing those customers' contact details > in the RIPE Whois Database because they were network users and not network > administrators. The ISP's NOC staff had skills, tools, processes, and > training and were in a much stronger position to provide meaningful > assistance to anyone with a genuine reason to make contact about the > administration of one of those customer networks. > > As I remember, the RIPE NCC was happy with the rationale back then. While > the specific wording of RIPE policy might have changed somewhat in the last > 20 years, I don't think the intent has. > > The contact details of the End User do not have to mean their personal > phone number or e-mail address. And if they do not have the skills, tools, > processes, and training to provide meaningful assistance to anyone with a > genuine reason to make contact about a specific network, providing a > personal phone number or e-mail address is arguably unhelpful. > > Kind regards, > > Leo Vegoda >

2 1

Re: [db-wg] Proposal for restricting authentication concerning use of revoked and expired GPG ID's in key-cert objects
by Christoffer Hansen 05 Nov '18

05 Nov '18

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 15:33, Gunnar Guðvarðarson <gunnar.gudvardarson(a)advania.is> wrote: > That's amazing(ly bad), thank you! True.

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Proposal for restricting authentication concerning use of revoked and expired GPG ID's in key-cert objects
by Christoffer Hansen (Lists) 05 Nov '18

05 Nov '18

Hi Gunnar, On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 15:51, Gunnar Guðvarðarson <gunnar.gudvardarson(a)advania.is> wrote: > What happens if you send signed update A, then signed update B, and then re-send signed update A. > > Does the re-sent signed update overwrite the object? Yes! If you re-send an older (signed) version (A) of an object in the RIPE database. A newer update (B) can be overwritten with the older one (A). The current implementation in the DB does not validate anything apart if the key as allowed or not. Expiration date or if an object has been update since an incoming update message is not taken into account. If the update message is signed with a valid key. It is accepted. (Currently I have only tested this with my own objects in the DB) Christoffer

1 0