- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Weird IRR entry
by Brian Rak 18 May '18

18 May '18

Seems like this shouldn't have been allowed to be created: route6: 2001:db8::/32 origin: AS10 mnt-by: EJU created: 2018-02-18T06:45:59Z last-modified: 2018-02-18T06:45:59Z source: RIPE

3 2

comment on comment at mic: database "purpose" vs not-globally-routed prefixes
by Sandra Murphy 17 May '18

17 May '18

(Sorry about this. typed the comment into the chat window, hit submit, got “disconnected” error, reconnected, but too late to comment.) The comment at the mic was that there are many IP prefix resources in the database that are not globally routed, and that those objects were not part of the RIPE database purpose as stated. So collection of personal data for those objects could not rely on the RIPE database purpose for justification. I disagree that the lack of current global routing for an IP prefix means the RIPE database purpose of facilitating coordination does not apply. An allocated prefix can be globally announced at any time. So there’s a need to have the data, anyway. In the current state of routing security, an allocated prefix can be globally announced at any time, not necessarily by the legitimate prefix holder. We’ve seen several examples of some ISP announcing a prefix that seemed not to be in use, sometimes even registering a route object for the announcement, and using that prefix for some unfriendly purpose. So there is still a need to have contact data for a prefix even before the legitimate prefix holder decides to globally announce the prefix. —Sandy

2 1

FW: Weird IRR entry
by Gunnar Guðvarðarson 17 May '18

17 May '18

Yeah, there is also a corresponding ASn aut-num: AS10 as-name: EJU1-RIPE admin-c: EJU1-RIPE tech-c: EJU2-RIPE status: OTHER mnt-by: EJU created: 2018-02-18T06:19:45Z last-modified: 2018-02-18T06:19:45Z source: RIPE AS10 is allocated to ARIN, and is in use by CSNET: as-block: AS8 - AS27 descr: ASN block not managed by the RIPE NCC I reported these objects to ripe-dbm, ops and abuse @ripe.net

1 0

<auto-dbm@ripe.net> is slow this afternoon.
by RIPE Database Administration 17 May '18

17 May '18

Dear Colleagues, Because of a very high level of use this afternoon, the response time of <auto-dbm(a)ripe.net> is longer than normal. I have made contact with those who are responsible and I expect the situation to improve as the machine works through the queue. Please be patient. Obviously we at the RIPE NCC Database Group are continuously working to make the performance of the database as good as possible. However, we cannot make improvements in zero time. We thank you for your co-operation up to now and we ask for your continued co-operation so that everyone receives the best possible service. If you have anymore questions, please contact <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Ambrose Magee ____________________________ RIPE Database Administration.

2 2

New on RIPE Labs: The GDPR: Amendments to the RIPE Database
by Mirjam Kuehne 14 May '18

14 May '18

Dear colleagues, This is our fourth in a series of RIPE Labs articles discussing the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) implementation. Here we're looking at amendments that will be needed to the RIPE Database in order to ensure GDPR compliance: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/maria_stafyla/how-were-implementing-the-gdpr-… Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Out-of-Region ROUTE(6) and AUT-NUM Objects in the RIPE Database
by Antony Gollan 09 May '18

09 May '18

Dear colleagues, In a new article on RIPE Labs, Denis Walker provides some context around the changes being made to the way out-of-region objects are managed and represented in the RIPE Database: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/out-of-region-route-6-and-aut-num-objec… Kind regards, Antony Gollan RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [db-wg] RIPE database on ftp.ripe.net
by Paul Weiss 09 May '18

09 May '18

Hi Marten, In the directory https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ <https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/> there are lots of "splits", is there an inventory guide so that we can understand which type of data each split contains? We need to access and search for; Company name, Org.number, Country, City, IP-range Can we also ftp download the complete IP Databases per country in Europe? Thanks, Paul Weiss

2 1

Re: [db-wg] Draft Agenda RIPE76 - Database Working Group
by William Sylvester 26 Apr '18

26 Apr '18

Dear all, Below is the agenda for the Database Working Group for RIPE76. 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 - 20 mins Tim Bruijnzeels, RIPE NCC C. Current State of RDAP - 20 mins Andrew Newton, ARIN D. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - 10 mins Maria Stafyla, RIPE NCC E. A modern chatbot approach for accessing RIPE database - 10 mins Laurenz Wagner, Janus Cloud F. NWI-5 Out of region ROUTE(6)/AUT-NUM objects implementation - 5 mins G. NWI - Open Proposals - 10 mins Z. AOB (open discussion)

1 0

Draft Agenda RIPE75 - Database Working Group
by William Sylvester 17 Apr '18

17 Apr '18

Dear all, Below is the draft outline for the Database Working Group agenda for RIPE76. 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 - 40 mins Tim Bruijnzeels, RIPE NCC C. NWI - Open Proposals - 10 mins D. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - 10 mins Maria Stafyla, RIPE NCC Z. AOB (open discussion)

1 0

Updating the database via HTTP API - best practices
by Alexander Stranzky 12 Apr '18

12 Apr '18

> What is the current best practice for handling Auth on HTTP API updates to the RIPE database, and is there a roadmap for change that I can consider as I write my tools to publish and maintain objects? Same situation here on my end. Anyways, I'd love to have an authentication method that uses one of my existing RIPE DB key-cert objects (maybe something like an HMAC). Cheers, Alex -- velia.net Internetdienste GmbH * Hessen-Homburg-Platz 1 * D-63452 Hanau Geschäftsführer: Franz G. Köhler, Arek Akilli * AG Hanau * HRB 7588 Tel: +49 6181 1898119 * http://www.velia.net Follow us on twitter: https://twitter.com/velia_net

1 0

Updating the database via HTTP API - best practices
by Andy Davidson 11 Apr '18

11 Apr '18

Hi, I would like to publish information in the RIPE database based on what my single-source-of-truth configuration management system knows and not what I sort of remember when I kind of get around to updating RIPE. Fortunately, there is a splendid looking API for this. The most recent and complete documentation that I can find with support from a search engine is https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/wiki/WHOIS-REST-API. On the subject of Authentication, the document says: "Currently only passwords are supported to authenticate updates”. Is this still up to date and entirely true? Does it mean MD5 password or does this mean I should be able to use something based on my SSO authentication pair to generate a password field? I thought that MD5 had been deprecated in circa. 2015? https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2015-June/004666.html What is the current best practice for handling Auth on HTTP API updates to the RIPE database, and is there a roadmap for change that I can consider as I write my tools to publish and maintain objects? Thanks for your help, database-wg & NCC experts, Andy -- Andy Davidson Asteroid International BV https://www.asteroidhq.com @asteroidhq @andyd -------------------------------------------------- Local interconnection. Where you need it.

1 0

Getting fraudulent entries removed
by Brian Rak 07 Apr '18

07 Apr '18

Hi, We've run into an issue where an unknown malicious party appears to have hijacked some of our IP space. They created entries in the RIPE database that they are using to actually get this space announced. What's even worse is their carrier is trying to say these announcements are legitimate because they have IRR entries (which is a whole other issue) What is the process like for actually getting this fraudulent entry removed? I've been in contact with RIPE NCC Support, and they have been super unhelpful (ref case #14523) The fraudulent entry is: https://apps.db.ripe.net/search/lookup.html?source=ripe&key=198.13.32.0/19A… route: 198.13.32.0/19 descr: 2nd route origin: AS39967 mnt-by: ADMASTER-MNT created: 2017-10-13T00:20:08Z last-modified: 2017-10-13T00:20:08Z source: RIPE I should also note that this ASN suspiciously appears to be announcing other people's space as well, but I can only confirm that this particular entry does not belong. I would suspect that their other IRR entries are fake as well. You can verify my request by reaching out to any of the POCs associated with this network: https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-198-13-32-0-1 Thanks, Brian Rak

6 13

Getting 'responsible organization' out of RDAP
by Brian Rak 22 Mar '18

22 Mar '18

I've been attempting to use RDAP to verify our customer's IP information, however I'm running into some difficulties due to differences between ARIN's implementation and RIPE's. For example, I'm trying to get the organization name for a particular IP. On ARIN, this is easy. I look through the provided vcards for one where the kind is 'org', and that gives me the information about the organization. (ex: https://rdap.arin.net/registry/ip/66.55.158.27 ) With RIPE's RDAP implementation, this data does not seem to be readily available. For example, if I look at https://rdap.db.ripe.net/ip/195.66.225.160 I'd expect to find the string 'London Internet Exchange Ltd.' somewhere within the response. If I look at the web UI: https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/#/query?searchtext=195.66.225.160#result… , this information is easily available. Would it be possible to expand the RDAP results to include organization information? This seems like it would just be another vcard entry, so there really shouldn't be any backwards compatibility issues. Apologies if this isn't the correct list, I can't really find any information about RDAP on RIPE's website.

3 6

Whois Update Server Migration
by Edward Shryane 21 Mar '18

21 Mar '18

Dear Working Group, on Wednesday 21st March, we plan to migrate the Whois Update Server to a new configuration. This will cause a short downtime for Whois updates. Queries will not be affected. We will also create a Service Announcement on the RIPE NCC website. Regards, Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

2 4

Whois release 1.91 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 7th March
by Edward Shryane 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

Dear Working Group, RIPE Database release 1.91 has been deployed to the Release Candidate environment. If no issues are found, we plan to deploy to production on 7th March. Release 1.91 includes the following main changes : - Removed "abuse-mailbox:" attribute from person,mntner,organisation,irt object types (as part of NWI-7 abuse-c implementation) - Don't allow multiple spaces, tab characters, or multiple lines, in the organisation org-name attribute. - Exclude certain email addresses (such as mailing lists and ticket queues) in abuse-mailbox,e-mail,irt-nfy,mnt-nfy,notify,ref-nfy,upd-to attributes - Added "end of stream" comment to NRTM responses - Fixed inconsistent newlines in --list-versions response The complete list of changes in this release can be found in GitHub: https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/blob/master/changes.txt Please let us know if you see any issues with this release in the RC environment. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 2

New on RIPE Labs: Legal Grounds for Lawful Personal Data Processing and the RIPE Database (GDPR)
by Athina Fragkouli 06 Mar '18

06 Mar '18

Dear all, In our third article on the GDPR, we are looking at the legal basis for processing personal data in the RIPE Database when it refers to an individual resource holder or contact person. We will also outline the relevant obligations of the responsible parties. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/Athina/gdpr-legal-grounds-for-lawful-personal… Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC

1 0

NRTM replication inefficiencies
by Job Snijders 21 Feb '18

21 Feb '18

Dear all, There may be some improvement opportunity for NRTMv3. The problem with the RIPE NRTMv2/NRTMv3 format is that it has no 'end-of-stream' indicator, thus making the only way to know that the output has ended (vs. hung/stalled/server dead) is either by observing a time-out & reconnect & compare last serial, or by using single-command connections to the NRTM server - which means even worse performance. When connecting to the RIPE NRTM service and issuing a command like: "-g RIPE:3:11012700-LAST -k" It would be good that when the RIPE NRTM server is done sending its inital blurp of backlogged data, the end of that phase of the stream of objects is marked by the server sending something like: "%CURRENT $TS You are now up to date" ($TS can be a unix timestamp) after this server message the client knows that it can stay connected and that it has received all information so far. I would also welcome an investigation into alternative approaches, (some not-via-WHOIS replication mechanisms), perhaps something over HTTPS can be done? Either way, something more robust would be useful. Kind regards, Job ps. An analogy can be made between BGP route refresh as described in RFC 2918 and Enhanced Route Refresh as described in RFC 7313. One first one didn't have an "End of blurp" marker which negatively impacted its usefulness, the later RFCintroduced the End-of-RIB marker which is very useful.

5 14

Clean up unreferenced maintainers (after 90 days)
by Tim Bruijnzeels 15 Feb '18

15 Feb '18

Dear Working Group, In the light of data protection we already clean up unreferenced organisation, person and role objects, and also mntner-role and mntner-person pairs, 90 days after such objects become unreferenced. So-far unreferenced maintainers are not cleaned up. We have about 8k such objects in the database. These objects are often syntactically incorrect and poorly maintained - so we would like to clean them up automatically 90 days after they become unused. Please let us know if you see any issues with this. Kind regards, Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Software Engineering and Senior Technology Officer RIPE NCC

6 8

NWI-5 Out of region ROUTE(6)/AUT-NUM objects implementation request
by William Sylvester 15 Feb '18

15 Feb '18

DB-WG Members, Support was shown for the proposal NWI-5 and no objections were raised after this round of discussion. At this time, the chairs request that the RIPE NCC schedule implementation of NWI-5 as described. This request is to remove “origin:” and flag “route:” objects as specified. The db-wg therefore ask the RIPE NCC to prepare an impact analysis, followed by an implementation plan and timeline for this request and the other issues raised in the problem solution of NWI-5 as follows: 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source: RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data. Thank you all for your work on this proposal! Kind regards, William & Denis DB-WG co-chairs

11 21

Implementation of NWI-5 out of region ROUTE(6) objects
by denis walker 12 Feb '18

12 Feb '18

Colleagues Based on the proposal by Tim for NWI-5 and the following discussions, the DB-WG co-chairs would like the RIPE NCC to schedule implementation of the following actions: -Remove the ASN authorisation requirement for ROUTE(6) object creation -Deprecate the "mnt-routes:" attribute in the AUT-NUM object -Remove the 'pending object creation' functionality for route creation -Create the source 'RIPE-NONAUTH' -Move all ROUTE(6) objects relating to non RIPE managed address space to this new source (pending eventual deletion after further discussion) -Move all non ripe managed AUT-NUM objects to this new source (pending eventual deletion after further discussion) -Adjust the query service as suggested in Tim's proposal -Disallow creation of any new AUT-NUM or ROUTE(6) objects in the RIPE Database for non RIPE managed resources, but allow existing objects to be modified or deleted -Remove the "mnt-routes:" attribute from all the placeholder INET(6)NUM objects in the RIPE Database for non RIPE managed address space -Delete the MNTNER object with the public password ('fixing' any other database objects that may refer to it) -Update all documentation to reflect the new processes -Ensure that the inter RIR transfer process for resources moving into the RIPE managed address space does not allow the transfer of ROUTE(6) objects from source RIPE-NONAUTH to source RIPE without the agreement of the resource holder cheersDenis & Williamco-chairs DB-WG

1 0

Creation of new out of region ROUTE(6) objects
by William Sylvester 12 Feb '18

12 Feb '18

Working Group Members, Following the last call for comments about creating out of region ROUTE(6) objects in the RIPE Database: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2018-January/005807.html There were a few comments to discontinue this service. There were no comments supporting the continuation of this service. The DB-WG co-chairs therefore draw a consensus on discontinuing this service. William & Denis DB-WG co-chairs

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: How We're Implementing the GDPR - the RIPE Database
by Mirjam Kuehne 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

Dear colleagues, This is our second in a series of articles discussing the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) implementation. Here we are looking at the purpose for which personal data is collected and publicly accessed through the RIPE Database, as well as other aspects of the data protection legislation, such as the legal basis for this processing, data removal procedures, and so on: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/Athina/how-we-re-implementing-the-gdpr-the-ri… Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal
by William Sylvester 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

WG Members, Based on the working group feedback, we have revised #4 to include the limitation if a chair has been removed. This should resolve any identified concerns. Assuming no further outstanding objections, we can move to establish this as the new process going forward. Kind regards, William & Denis DB-WG Co-Chairs Proposed revision to the Database Working Group chair selection process; 1) Number of chairs is a minimum of 2 with a maximum of 3. 2) Chair can be removed at any time by consensus. 3) Chair terms are staggered yearly. 4) One chair per year is replaced. Any member of the RIPE Community may stand for chair, unless that person has been removed from the position of working group chair in the last 3 years. 5) Working group selects chair by consensus. 6) The consensus judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and will exclude the co-chair(s) who is the subject of that consensus judgement. 7) Selection process is as follow; 7.1) Interested parties have two weeks to make their interest known via the mailing list, or directly to the Chair/s. 7.2) After two weeks, the Chair/s ensure that all candidates are announced on the mailing list and issue a call for discussion. 7.3) WG members express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. 7.4) Two weeks after the call for discussion, the Chair/s declare a decision, based on mailing list discussion, as they would do for a policy proposal. 8) Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair (or their deputy) whose decision shall be final. 9) In the case more than one chair is up for selection at the same time, the chair with the greatest support will take a multi-year term, the chair with the least support will take the second longest term. Terms will be determined by the number of chairs (3 chairs = 3 year term, 2 chairs = 2 year teams). The intent is to maintain continuity of the working group chairs. So the working group is never left without a chair.

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal
by Erik Bais 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

Hi William, I would like to support the proposed process. (with the additional clarifications of the remarks of Niall.) If a chair would be removed by consensus, he/she should not be accepted for the same position. Regards, Erik Bais From: db-wg <db-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> on behalf of William Sylvester via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> Reply-To: William Sylvester <william.sylvester(a)addrex.net> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 18:41 To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> Subject: [db-wg] Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal WG Members, At the RIPE75 in Dubai, the working group chairs committed to presenting a proposal for revising the chair selection process and general housekeeping of the Database working group. This was motivated from some of the challenges we experienced as a working group over the past year. After taking a review of the other RIPE community working groups, the proposal below represents what we feel Is a fair approach to revise our current processes. This also includes clarification on matters where previously our processes were unclear. This also includes comments and feedback from members of the working group. Please express your support or otherwise for these changes, the intent is to use this process for future chair selection including the pending selection process due. Kind regards, William & Denis DB-WG Co-Chairs Proposed revision to the Database Working Group chair selection process; 1) Number of chairs is a minimum of 2 with a maximum of 3. 2) Chair can be removed at any time by consensus. 3) Chair terms are staggered yearly. 4) One chair per year is replaced. 5) Working group selects chair by consensus. 6) The consensus judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and will exclude the co-chair(s) who is the subject of that consensus judgement. 7) Selection process is as follow; 7.1) Interested parties have two weeks to make their interest known via the mailing list, or directly to the Chair/s. 7.2) After two weeks, the Chair/s ensure that all candidates are announced on the mailing list and issue a call for discussion. 7.3) WG members express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. 7.4) Two weeks after the call for discussion, the Chair/s declare a decision, based on mailing list discussion, as they would do for a policy proposal. 8) Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair (or their deputy) whose decision shall be final. 9) In the case more than one chair is up for selection at the same time, the chair with the greatest support will take a multi-year term, the chair with the least support will take the second longest term. Terms will be determined by the number of chairs (3 chairs = 3 year term, 2 chairs = 2 year teams). The intent is to maintain continuity of the working group chairs. So the working group is never left without a chair.

3 2

Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal
by William Sylvester 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

WG Members, At the RIPE75 in Dubai, the working group chairs committed to presenting a proposal for revising the chair selection process and general housekeeping of the Database working group. This was motivated from some of the challenges we experienced as a working group over the past year. After taking a review of the other RIPE community working groups, the proposal below represents what we feel Is a fair approach to revise our current processes. This also includes clarification on matters where previously our processes were unclear. This also includes comments and feedback from members of the working group. Please express your support or otherwise for these changes, the intent is to use this process for future chair selection including the pending selection process due. Kind regards, William & Denis DB-WG Co-Chairs Proposed revision to the Database Working Group chair selection process; 1) Number of chairs is a minimum of 2 with a maximum of 3. 2) Chair can be removed at any time by consensus. 3) Chair terms are staggered yearly. 4) One chair per year is replaced. 5) Working group selects chair by consensus. 6) The consensus judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and will exclude the co-chair(s) who is the subject of that consensus judgement. 7) Selection process is as follow; 7.1) Interested parties have two weeks to make their interest known via the mailing list, or directly to the Chair/s. 7.2) After two weeks, the Chair/s ensure that all candidates are announced on the mailing list and issue a call for discussion. 7.3) WG members express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. 7.4) Two weeks after the call for discussion, the Chair/s declare a decision, based on mailing list discussion, as they would do for a policy proposal. 8) Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair (or their deputy) whose decision shall be final. 9) In the case more than one chair is up for selection at the same time, the chair with the greatest support will take a multi-year term, the chair with the least support will take the second longest term. Terms will be determined by the number of chairs (3 chairs = 3 year term, 2 chairs = 2 year teams). The intent is to maintain continuity of the working group chairs. So the working group is never left without a chair.

4 4