- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [db-wg] violation of DB T&C by DB-WG co-chair, is it acceptable?
by Randy Bush 18 Oct '17

18 Oct '17

this is a brilliant exercise to see how far the community will bend over in pseudo-politeness while it is being slimed and abused. randy

2 2

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by George Michaelson 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Yes, I would support these changes. Half of the concerns with APNIC resource management disappears if we cease depending on aut-num authorization for route objects. I prefer that ultimately the open maintainer method cease. But a step along the way is to mark foreign objects clearly, so their status and role can be understood. -George On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM, William Sylvester via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: William Sylvester <william.sylvester(a)addrex.net> > To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:22:55 +0000 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision? > Db-wg members, > > Now that there has been substantial discussion on this topic, I wanted to try to bring the conversation back to a more practical and actionable path forward. Clearly this is a topic where there are a lot of opinions. From seeing the discussion and receiving additional feedback, I wanted to point out some re-occurring themes and request a revised proposal for working group consideration. > > > 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently the only RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates data concurrency issues across Internet databases by requiring the creation of duplicate autnums. > > 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source: RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data. > > > I’d like to seek input from the group; > > - Do you feel these options are straight forward and easy to understand? > - Does this provide a reasonable security posture? > - Will this make a positive impact for RIPE DB and the greater Internet? > - Do you support these concepts? > > > Thanks, > William > Db-wg co-chair > >

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by denis walker 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Hi Job I agree with your assessment and, although it should be in a separate thread later, I think it's worth having a discussion about notifying resource holders if a foreign ROUTE object is created in the RIPE Database. But lets focus on the main points for now. cheersdenis co-chair DB WG From: Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> To: den is <denis1(a)gmail.com> Cc: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 10:06 Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision? Dear Denis, Just to make sure we are on the same page, the 2 items presented by Bill are not two mutually exclusive options, I think both need to be done. On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 01:04:08AM +0000, den is via db-wg wrote: > 3) Consider possible, simple options to allow non RIPE resource > holders to 'approve' (if not authorise) the creation of a foreign > ROUTE object. An even simpler option is to not even attempt to authorize the creation of non-RIPE route objects, but simply flag them as "RIPE-NONAUTH". If people want to create authoritive route objects for non-RIPE-managed space they can create those objects in the DB from the RIR where the space is managed (APNIC, AFRINIC, etc). While on the surface of things, it looks trivial to have the RIPE database software fire off an email to what most probably is the legitimate 'foreign' owner of the IP block, it introduces quite some complexity such as "what if the resource is transfer to a new owner" "what if the resource is transferred to a new owner and a new RIR". Even though at some point in the past a form of approval was given, a day later that approval may have been revoked. The RIPE DB would have to continuously track movement of IP space. The continuously tracking of ownership aspects in other databases certainly can be done, but now the project no longer is simple low hanging fruit. I see some value if the RIPE DB could notify owners of non-RIPE IP blocks when non-authoritative data is created in the RIPE DB, but I think that would be something to consider in the future. Kind regards, Job

1 1

Fw: Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by denis walker 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Hi Randy I don't think anyone cares how much work a script has to do, whether it's the one that writes or reads the data. But keep in mind that the RIPE Database was designed to be, and still largely is, human readable. So for the poor humans who delve into the database manually it's probably better not to confuse them with extra, new tags on 95% of the data that has the same meaning as before, and just tag that little 5% (or so) that can now be interpreted differently. cheersdenisco-chair DB WG From: Randy Bush via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> To: job(a)instituut.net Cc: Nick Hilliard via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 19:34 Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision? >>> 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source: >>> RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data. >> >> why not go the other, more positive, direction, and identify authorised >> data with RIPE-AUTH or whatever? no need to be pejorative. > > This is not meant to be pejorative. "RIPE-NONAUTH" was brought up > because that way we don't touch the majority of objects that actually > are valid, and belong with RIPE. ahh, the poor overworked script will have less to do so we will have to pay it less. good plan. > If you have a different suggestion than "RIPE-NONAUTH" I think the group > would be all ears. "RIPE-2", "RIPE-OTHER", all is fine with me. for those old enough to remember, RARE

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by den is 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

3) Consider possible, simple options to allow non RIPE resource holders to 'approve' (if not authorise) the creation of a foreign ROUTE object. cheers denis co-chair DB WG On 17 October 2017 at 01:23, William Sylvester via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: William Sylvester <william.sylvester(a)addrex.net> > To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:22:55 +0000 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision? > Db-wg members, > > Now that there has been substantial discussion on this topic, I wanted to try to bring the conversation back to a more practical and actionable path forward. Clearly this is a topic where there are a lot of opinions. From seeing the discussion and receiving additional feedback, I wanted to point out some re-occurring themes and request a revised proposal for working group consideration. > > > 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently the only RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates data concurrency issues across Internet databases by requiring the creation of duplicate autnums. > > 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source: RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data. > > > I’d like to seek input from the group; > > - Do you feel these options are straight forward and easy to understand? > - Does this provide a reasonable security posture? > - Will this make a positive impact for RIPE DB and the greater Internet? > - Do you support these concepts? > > > Thanks, > William > Db-wg co-chair > >

2 1

Re: [db-wg] violation of DB T&C by DB-WG co-chair, is it acceptable?
by Brian Nisbet 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

On 14/10/17 12:37, Carsten Schiefner wrote: >> William, >> >> On 13.10.2017 21:56, William Sylvester wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> 2. Conduct of a co-chair for a working group. This is a much more >>> challenging issue, should a chair be held accountable for the >>> actions of an employer? >> >> are we really talking about an action by some random colleagues of David >> he'd barely know as they would work in another department across the >> street and therefore he'd almost never have anything to do with them? > > I can speak to this from personal experience. > > When I worked for BT, a misguided salesdroid mined the RIPE DB and > used it to send spam to possible customers. When I found out I > arranged for the salesdroid to be suitably formally warned, extracted > an apology from them and passed the apologies of the company to the > RIPE NCC and the community. At the time I was a co-chair of the DB WG. > > I would expect any member of the community (not just a WG chair) to do > likewise. > > Nigel I would very much like to see, at the very least, something similar to the above, very clearly and formally. There are, it should be pointed out, processes for removal of WG Chairs, however the DB WG has not decided to have one. There are examples out there that the WG could adopt if it wishes. The problems that occurred in Rome were one of the reasons the community felt that a process was a good idea, but remember, lack of documented process didn't stop things happening on that occasion. The WG has the power to effect change if needed. This is *still* not a great state of affairs and while I don't want to take away from the points that must be discussed in Dubai, I would, at this point, expect it to be on the agenda at the meeting. Thanks, Brian

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Nick Hilliard 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Daniel Shaw via db-wg wrote: > On 17/10/2017, 03:24, William Sylvester via db-wg typed: >> > >> > >> > 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently the only RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates data concurrency issues across Internet databases by requiring the creation of duplicate autnums. >> > >> > 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source: RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data. >> > >> > >> > I’d like to seek input from the group; >> > >> > - Do you feel these options are straight forward and easy to understand? >> > - Does this provide a reasonable security posture? >> > - Will this make a positive impact for RIPE DB and the greater Internet? >> > - Do you support these concepts? >> > > > Yes. There isn't really any downside to these. There are clear benefits to both. Agreed. This sounds like a sensible thing to do. Nick

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Daniel Shaw 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

On 17/10/2017, 03:24, William Sylvester via db-wg typed: > > > 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently the only RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates data concurrency issues across Internet databases by requiring the creation of duplicate autnums. > > 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source: RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data. > > > I’d like to seek input from the group; > > - Do you feel these options are straight forward and easy to understand? > - Does this provide a reasonable security posture? > - Will this make a positive impact for RIPE DB and the greater Internet? > - Do you support these concepts? > Yes. There isn't really any downside to these. There are clear benefits to both. Regards, Daniel

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Job Snijders 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Dear WG, chairs, On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:24:14PM +0000, William Sylvester via db-wg wrote: > Now that there has been substantial discussion on this topic, I wanted > to try to bring the conversation back to a more practical and > actionable path forward. Clearly this is a topic where there are a lot > of opinions. From seeing the discussion and receiving additional > feedback, I wanted to point out some re-occurring themes and request a > revised proposal for working group consideration. > > 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently > the only RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates > data concurrency issues across Internet databases by requiring the > creation of duplicate autnums. > > 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source: > RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data. > > I’d like to seek input from the group; > > - Do you feel these options are straight forward and easy to understand? > - Does this provide a reasonable security posture? > - Will this make a positive impact for RIPE DB and the greater Internet? > - Do you support these concepts? I fully support executing both action items. Removal of the "origin:" authorisation step will bring the RIPE IRR in line with other databases such as APNIC, RADB and as such make use of the database easier for global organisations. It also aligns with the practises observed in RPKI. Flagging "route:/route6:" objects with "RIPE-NONAUTH" when they cover non-RIPE managed space has many benefits. Setting the "source:" to represent what the data actually means, we can programmatically analyse the contents of the RIPE DB and facilitate creation of higher quality route filters, but also for instance use it as a reputation factor in spam scoring. These two options represent what currently is the lowest hanging fruit to improve in this problem space. Funny enough, neither of these items makes things more difficult for anyone involved, on the contrary - by making route: authorisation easier, _and_ showing what is authoritative data and what is not, we improve the security posture of the RIPE community. Kind regards, Job

4 3

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Job Snijders 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Dear Denis, Just to make sure we are on the same page, the 2 items presented by Bill are not two mutually exclusive options, I think both need to be done. On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 01:04:08AM +0000, den is via db-wg wrote: > 3) Consider possible, simple options to allow non RIPE resource > holders to 'approve' (if not authorise) the creation of a foreign > ROUTE object. An even simpler option is to not even attempt to authorize the creation of non-RIPE route objects, but simply flag them as "RIPE-NONAUTH". If people want to create authoritive route objects for non-RIPE-managed space they can create those objects in the DB from the RIR where the space is managed (APNIC, AFRINIC, etc). While on the surface of things, it looks trivial to have the RIPE database software fire off an email to what most probably is the legitimate 'foreign' owner of the IP block, it introduces quite some complexity such as "what if the resource is transfer to a new owner" "what if the resource is transferred to a new owner and a new RIR". Even though at some point in the past a form of approval was given, a day later that approval may have been revoked. The RIPE DB would have to continuously track movement of IP space. The continuously tracking of ownership aspects in other databases certainly can be done, but now the project no longer is simple low hanging fruit. I see some value if the RIPE DB could notify owners of non-RIPE IP blocks when non-authoritative data is created in the RIPE DB, but I think that would be something to consider in the future. Kind regards, Job

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Sander Steffann 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Hi, Op 17 okt. 2017, om 09:53 heeft Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> het volgende geschreven: > These two options represent what currently is the lowest hanging fruit > to improve in this problem space. Funny enough, neither of these items > makes things more difficult for anyone involved, on the contrary - by > making route: authorisation easier, _and_ showing what is authoritative > data and what is not, we improve the security posture of the RIPE > community. +1 This is low-hanging fruit indeed, and I see no problems with either of them. Cheers, Sander

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Daniel Shaw 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

On 11/10/2017, 18:22, Sascha typed: > > >> Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects for non RIPE resources? This question has to be split into two to be able to be answered. Part 1: Should RIPE DB allow creation of route/route6 objects when both the inetnum(6) and aut-num resources are non-RIPE? Part 2: Should RIPE DB allow creation of route/route6 objects where one or the other of the prefix or origin asn *are* in the RIPE DB, and the other is not. That is so call cross-rir route objects? Part 2 is trickier, and largely what this thread is debating as I understand it. For part 1, I struggle to see any good reason to allow this to continue. It simple allows for anyone to create any route: objects, referring to any combination of resources that may or may not have any bearing on the reality of the internet. There is not even a good verification the resources are even allocated at all. In addition, once set up, there is zero incentive for anyone to ever delete these once obsolete. This was necessary once upon a time, as there were no useful alternatives then. That is now history. > > Is an option D: create a central IRRDB with authentication hooks > into all RIRs completely out of the question? I don't see that as a practical or realistic option. Regards, Daniel

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Daniel Shaw 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

On 11/10/2017, 17:48, Nick Hilliard via db-wg typed: > > > Job Snijders wrote: >> I think this touches upon an incredibly important question: how do we >> distinguish between garbage and properly authenticated "route:" >> objects covering RIPE-managed space? > > and more to the point: are there good reasons and community support for > continuing not to distinguish between the two. Quite so. I cannot see any. Having a flag/label that makes it clear right away how much authentication a given route:/rotue6: object has associated with it can only be a good thing. That doesn't change the existence or creation of any class of object. But clearly marking what is what seems a no brainer to me. Thanks, Daniel

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Lu Heng 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Hi Guys: How about not change any status in BD until we have an automated API to deal with this. How about Just simply send an email the the holder in foreign database to notify them properly. I think the biggest problem we have here is not foreign route object being created, but rather they being created without holder’s knowledge. On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:03 den is via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > 3) Consider possible, simple options to allow non RIPE resource > holders to 'approve' (if not authorise) the creation of a foreign > ROUTE object. > > cheers > denis > co-chair DB WG > > > On 17 October 2017 at 01:23, William Sylvester via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > wrote: > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: William Sylvester <william.sylvester(a)addrex.net> > > To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > Cc: > > Bcc: > > Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:22:55 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final > decision? > > Db-wg members, > > > > Now that there has been substantial discussion on this topic, I wanted > to try to bring the conversation back to a more practical and actionable > path forward. Clearly this is a topic where there are a lot of opinions. > From seeing the discussion and receiving additional feedback, I wanted to > point out some re-occurring themes and request a revised proposal for > working group consideration. > > > > > > 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently the > only RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates data > concurrency issues across Internet databases by requiring the creation of > duplicate autnums. > > > > 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source: > RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data. > > > > > > I’d like to seek input from the group; > > > > - Do you feel these options are straight forward and easy to understand? > > - Does this provide a reasonable security posture? > > - Will this make a positive impact for RIPE DB and the greater Internet? > > - Do you support these concepts? > > > > > > Thanks, > > William > > Db-wg co-chair > > > > > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by William Sylvester 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Db-wg members, Now that there has been substantial discussion on this topic, I wanted to try to bring the conversation back to a more practical and actionable path forward. Clearly this is a topic where there are a lot of opinions. From seeing the discussion and receiving additional feedback, I wanted to point out some re-occurring themes and request a revised proposal for working group consideration. 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently the only RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates data concurrency issues across Internet databases by requiring the creation of duplicate autnums. 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source: RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data. I’d like to seek input from the group; - Do you feel these options are straight forward and easy to understand? - Does this provide a reasonable security posture? - Will this make a positive impact for RIPE DB and the greater Internet? - Do you support these concepts? Thanks, William Db-wg co-chair

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October
by denis walker 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Hi Tim Thanks for working through this in time for the RIPE Meeting. It may not be the last word on "abuse-c:" but it will please a lot of people. cheersdenisco-chair DB WG From: Tim Bruijnzeels via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> Sent: Monday, 16 October 2017, 16:21 Subject: Re: [db-wg] Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October Dear Working Group, Whois release 1.90 has now been deployed to production. Kind regards Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Software Engineering and Senior Technical Officer RIPE NCC > On 27 Sep 2017, at 10:28, Tim Bruijnzeels via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October > Date: 27 September 2017 at 10:26:44 GMT+2 > To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > Dear working group, > > RIPE Database Release 1.90 was deployed to the Release Candidate Environment, last week on 22 September 2017. If no issues are raised, we plan to deploy this version to production on Monday 16 October 2017 > > Release 1.90 introduces the following main features in support of NWI-7 (abuse-c implementation): > > = Allow adding an "abuse-c:" attribute to INET(6)NUM and AUT-NUM objects > = Disallow adding "abuse-c:" to object types other than ROLE, INET(6)NUM and AUT-NUM > > Release 1.90 contains a number of small improvements: > > = Make org-name validation case-sensitive (no longer consider case changes a no-op) > = Support to remove generated AUT-NUM "remarks:" regarding legacy status > > The complete list of other minor issues solved by this release can be found here: > 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. > > Kind regards > > Tim Bruijnzeels > > Assistant Manager Software Engineering and Senior Technical Officer > RIPE NCC > > >

1 0

Re: [db-wg] Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October
by Tim Bruijnzeels 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Dear Working Group, Whois release 1.90 has now been deployed to production. Kind regards Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Software Engineering and Senior Technical Officer RIPE NCC > On 27 Sep 2017, at 10:28, Tim Bruijnzeels via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Whois release 1.90 in Release Candidate environment, production release planned for 16 October > Date: 27 September 2017 at 10:26:44 GMT+2 > To: Database WG <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > Dear working group, > > RIPE Database Release 1.90 was deployed to the Release Candidate Environment, last week on 22 September 2017. If no issues are raised, we plan to deploy this version to production on Monday 16 October 2017 > > Release 1.90 introduces the following main features in support of NWI-7 (abuse-c implementation): > > = Allow adding an "abuse-c:" attribute to INET(6)NUM and AUT-NUM objects > = Disallow adding "abuse-c:" to object types other than ROLE, INET(6)NUM and AUT-NUM > > Release 1.90 contains a number of small improvements: > > = Make org-name validation case-sensitive (no longer consider case changes a no-op) > = Support to remove generated AUT-NUM "remarks:" regarding legacy status > > The complete list of other minor issues solved by this release can be found here: > 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. > > Kind regards > > Tim Bruijnzeels > > Assistant Manager Software Engineering and Senior Technical Officer > RIPE NCC > > >

1 0

Re: [db-wg] DB signatures
by Job Snijders 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Thanks Tim!

1 0

Re: [db-wg] DB signatures
by Tim Bruijnzeels 16 Oct '17

16 Oct '17

Dear Aliaksei, working group, The split files, and all other content of the ftp site, are also available on https: https://ftp.ripe.net/ https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ They have been available here for quite a while but I realise that this was not widely announced, nor documented. I will make sure that documentation is updated. The files are generated using a snapshot of data at midnight CEST - but take over 2 hours to complete - because we have to filter out personal data. Because this is resource intense, and because there may be scripts out there running at various times in the day and expecting to retrieve the ‘midnight’ snapshot, I am not keen on increasing the frequency unless it’s clear that there is great demand for this. Dependent on your needs the NRTM service may also be a fit for you: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/nrtm-mirroring Kind regards, Tim Bruijnzeels > On 16 Oct 2017, at 11:30, Horváth Ágoston János via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > From: Horváth Ágoston János <horvath.agoston(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [db-wg] DB signatures > Date: 15 October 2017 at 12:22:03 GMT+2 > To: Aliaksei Sheshka <sheshkaoss(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "db-wg(a)ripe.net >> Database WG" <db-wg(a)ripe.net> > > > The gzip format already contains checksum. > Signing is a different issue. But the first question one might ask is > why this data is still offered through FTP. Using https would also > make most of the signing requirements obsolete. > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg > <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Aliaksei Sheshka <sheshkaoss(a)gmail.com> >> To: db-wg(a)ripe.net >> Cc: >> Bcc: >> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:01:56 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [db-wg] DB signatures >> I assume time stamps are UTC, ftp shows 10/12/17, 10:12:00 PM, now it is Fri Oct 13 22:57:17 2017 UTC >> I would say 24h+ update for such data is too much. >> Also having signatures / checksums is a standard security measure for any downloads and are very easy to implement. >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:58 PM, denis walker <ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Aliaksei >>> >>> The files are regenerated daily. There are some checks done on the files as part of the generation process, like zero size check or size difference more than some percentage from yesterday. Perhaps the RIPE NCC can comment on the possibility of signing or checksum files? >>> >>> cheers >>> denis >>> co-chair DB WG >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> >>> To: db-wg(a)ripe.net >>> Sent: Friday, 13 October 2017, 19:45 >>> Subject: [db-wg] DB signatures >>> >>> Hello! >>> >>> I would like to know if there is a plan to sign / checksum files located at >>> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ ? >>> Currently there is no mechanism to know if files aren't tampered or corrupted. >>> >>> My second question is how often those files are updated? >>> >>> Thanks!

1 0

Re: [db-wg] DB signatures
by Horváth Ágoston János 15 Oct '17

15 Oct '17

The gzip format already contains checksum. Signing is a different issue. But the first question one might ask is why this data is still offered through FTP. Using https would also make most of the signing requirements obsolete. On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Aliaksei Sheshka <sheshkaoss(a)gmail.com> > To: db-wg(a)ripe.net > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 19:01:56 -0400 > Subject: Re: [db-wg] DB signatures > I assume time stamps are UTC, ftp shows 10/12/17, 10:12:00 PM, now it is Fri Oct 13 22:57:17 2017 UTC > I would say 24h+ update for such data is too much. > Also having signatures / checksums is a standard security measure for any downloads and are very easy to implement. > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:58 PM, denis walker <ripedenis(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Hi Aliaksei >> >> The files are regenerated daily. There are some checks done on the files as part of the generation process, like zero size check or size difference more than some percentage from yesterday. Perhaps the RIPE NCC can comment on the possibility of signing or checksum files? >> >> cheers >> denis >> co-chair DB WG >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> >> To: db-wg(a)ripe.net >> Sent: Friday, 13 October 2017, 19:45 >> Subject: [db-wg] DB signatures >> >> Hello! >> >> I would like to know if there is a plan to sign / checksum files located at >> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ ? >> Currently there is no mechanism to know if files aren't tampered or corrupted. >> >> My second question is how often those files are updated? >> >> Thanks! >> >> >> >> > >

1 0

violation of DB T&C by DB-WG co-chair, is it acceptable?
by Elvis Daniel Velea 14 Oct '17

14 Oct '17

Dear RIPE NCC, can you please present a report showing how many LIRs have reported RIPE DB T&C violations? How many were resolved and what was the outcome? - Specifically, how many times has the RIPE NCC taken any action other than a warning message. Dear DB-WG, should we accept that one of the chairs of this WG is purposely violating the T&Cs of the RIPE DB? Please see below one of the e-mails received from David, the RIPE DB-WG co-chair, by a RIPE NCC member named /<company>/. (I'd like to mention that /<company>/ has never had a business relationship with Larus Cloud Service Limited, has never subscribed to any mailing list and has never requested the message below - which I find to be spam as it was never solicited). regards, elvis From: Larus Team <vendors(a)laruscloudservice.net> Subject: Unused IPv4 space of /<company>/ Dear Colleagues, We are contacting you regarding potential unused IPv4 address currently registered to your organisation /<company>/. Organisations like yours have in the past received address IPv4 space, it sometimes remains unused after changes to networks. Based on the available information it appears that your organisation is currently holding IPv4 space that appears unused or underutilised. We would like to offer you the possibility to capitalise on these addresses, we can assist you in either finding organisation to permanently transfer (sell) towards, or assist you in finding and forging long term relationships with some of our clients by leasing the unused space to them, generating a long-term income. We are a company based in Hong Kong, our CEO Heng Lu, has over ten years’ experience in managing Internet resources across the globe. Our IP manager David Hilario previously worked for the RIPE NCC one of the five RIR and as such has an intricate knowledge of the policies in the RIR policies especially when it comes to transfers and leasing the address space. We have clients lined up waiting for permanent transfers or long-term lease, so we can fulfil any of your requirements. We offer clients with available IP space a 3 months exclusivity contract. based on your requirements, we will match our waiting list clients with your criteria so that your IP space can be capitalise as soon as possible at the best possible rate. Please note that if you are leasing out your address space, we will offer it on a minimum of yearly basis with advance payment from our clients. Please find attached to this email our NDA to be filled in from your side and returned to us before we can proceed any further in our cooperation in regard to these transfers or long-term lease. We can lease and sell IP space to and from ARIN (North America) APNIC (Asia Pacific) and RIPE NCC (Europe, Middle East and parts of Central Asia). Kind Regards, David Hilario IP Manager Larus Cloud Service Limited p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784 f: +852 29888068 a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.net e: d.hilario(a)outsideheaven.com Larus Team www.laruscloudservice.net <http://sctrack.mail.laruscloudservice.net/track/click/eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjogNDE4M…>

4 3

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
by Sascha Luck [ml] 14 Oct '17

14 Oct '17

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 02:46:54PM +0100, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote: >Job Snijders wrote: >> I think this touches upon an incredibly important question: how do we >> distinguish between garbage and properly authenticated "route:" >> objects covering RIPE-managed space? > >and more to the point: are there good reasons and community support for >continuing not to distinguish between the two. Well, distinguishing in the irrdb is one thing, but how would you distinguish between them in RealLife(tm)? It's not like you can not route/accept a cross-RIR route: object (at least not without Breaking The Internet) Also, what would the distinguisher be for eg. a route: with prefix from RIPE and ASN from ARIN? RIPE-PARTIALLY-AUTHENTICATED? cheers, Sascha Luck

3 2

Re: Geoloc Object
by Erik Bais - A2B Internet 14 Oct '17

14 Oct '17

Hi Milad, If you can share the range (can be off-list if you prever) and the desired geo loc. I’ll be more than happy to assist. We fix these kind of things for customers a lot .. Regards, Erik Bais Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > Op 14 okt. 2017 om 11:02 heeft Milad Afshar <afshar.milad89(a)gmail.com> het volgende geschreven: > > Hi Folks, > I hope this email finds you well. > I have problem on some of my IP ranges location showing in RIPEstat,I would like to know that does the "geoloc" object in RIPE Database help the geolocation database providers(Maxmind and etc.) to find the correct location of IP Ranges? > Many thanks. > Milad Afshari >

1 0

Geoloc Object
by Milad Afshar 14 Oct '17

14 Oct '17

Hi Folks, I hope this email finds you well. I have problem on some of my IP ranges location showing in RIPEstat,I would like to know that does the "geoloc" object in RIPE Database help the geolocation database providers(Maxmind and etc.) to find the correct location of IP Ranges? Many thanks. Milad Afshari

1 0

Re: [db-wg] DB signatures
by denis walker 14 Oct '17

14 Oct '17

Hi Aliaksei The files are regenerated daily. There are some checks done on the files as part of the generation process, like zero size check or size difference more than some percentage from yesterday. Perhaps the RIPE NCC can comment on the possibility of signing or checksum files? cheersdenisco-chair DB WG From: Aliaksei Sheshka via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> To: db-wg(a)ripe.net Sent: Friday, 13 October 2017, 19:45 Subject: [db-wg] DB signatures Hello! I would like to know if there is a plan to sign / checksum files located at ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ ? Currently there is no mechanism to know if files aren't tampered or corrupted. My second question is how often those files are updated? Thanks!

2 1