- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

New draft: "New Values of the 'status:' attribute for inet6num Objects"
by leo vegoda 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

Dear Colleagues, Thank you for the comments we have received on the draft document "New Values of the 'status:' attribute for inet6num Objects". We have revised it to incorporate the suggestions you have made. The meaning of the labels has been made clearer, in line with the comments received. ALLOCATED-BY-RIR - For allocations made by an RIR to an LIR. ALLOCATED-BY-LIR - For allocations made by an LIR or an LIR's downstream customer to another downstream organisation. ASSIGNED - For assignments made to End User sites The new draft is available from our web site at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/new-value-status.html> We would welcome comments on this new draft until Thursday, 1 August 2002. All comments and suggestions should be sent to <lir-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC, Registration Services Assistant Manager

1 0

Mntners with only MAIL-FROM auth
by Andrei Robachevsky 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

Attention owners of mntner objects using _only_ MAIL-FROM authentication method. Dear Colleagues, We recently sent out a message to all contacts for maintainers that still used MAIL-FROM as the ONLY means of authentication. This method is no longer valid and no updates can be authorised if any of the maintainers checked are in this situation. The message pointed to the proposed procedure on how to fix such situation (http://www.ripe.net/db/mailfrom.html). The RIPE-DBM support team has been overwhelmed with fax requests to update these maintainers. At the moment we are not able to respond to these requests as quickly as we would like to do. We have found it necessary to give a higher priority to other support requests. Therefore the response time for updates to maintainer authentication may be 5 to 10 working days. Please do not send repeat faxes unless we ask for them and do not send e-mails asking for a status update on the changes. This only slows the whole process down. We will reply to each request as soon as we make the change or find that we need additional information. This message will also be sent to all contacts for maintainers that still use MAIL-FROM as the ONLY means of authentication. Please bear with us on this and we apologise for the delay. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky DB Group Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Proposal for adding external repository reference to import/expor t attributes
by Lu, Ping 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

Hi, All, I think it is time we start to implement the external repository reference specified in RFC2725 section 9.6 === Quote Begin ==== 9.6 Other Objects Many of the RPSL ancillary objects have no natural hierarchy the way AS numbers, Internet addresses and routes do have a numeric hierarchy. Some examples are "maintainers", "people" and "role" objects. For these objects, lack of any hierarchy leads to two problems. 1. There is no hierarchy that can be exploited to direct queries to alternate registries. At some point the query strategy of searching all known registries becomes impractical. 2. There is no hierarchy on which authorizations of additions can be based. The first problem can be addressed by considering the name space for each of the ancillary objects to be unique only within the local database and to use explicit references to an external repository where needed. To specify an external repository reference, the object key is preceded by the name of the repository and the delimiter "::". For example a NIC handle may take the form "RIPE::CO19". Currently there is a desire to keep NIC handles unique so the naming convention of appending a dash and the repository name is used. Prepending the repository name provides the unique name space since an object in the RIPE database referencing "CO19" would be interpreted as "RIPE::CO19" by default, but it would still be possible to query or reference "IANA::CO19". There is no possibility of accidentally forgetting to adhere to the conventions when making an addition and the existing objects are accommodated, including cases where name conflicts have already occurred. === Quote End ==== Some background: As an ISP we constantly are in the need to find other ISP's routing policy from other registry. Currently we have to do either the following actions: 1. Move the object into our registry. 2. Duplicate the object in our registry. Solution 1 is appropriate if other ISPs own the object but sometimes they have no authority over the object or they don't want to move the object at all (usually a peering ISP). Solution 2 have several problems: 1. The owner of the original object most likely will object to have duplicate in our registry. 2. If the owner has no objection, the duplicate object will gradually become out-of-sync. 3. It is almost impossible to avoid name collision. For example "AS-CUSTOMER" is a very popular as-set name, if there is an "AS-CUSTOMER" in our registry already then we have to add ASN to the name to become "ASN:AS-CUSTOMER". Then not only we have to duplicate the as-set object we also have to duplicate aut-num, person-role and all the associated objects as well ( quite a mess really ). 4. How do I know it is an original or duplicate ? Now the proposal: To implement "::" delimiter to support external repository reference. In a limited scope just to add "::" delimiter to the non-database-integrity-impacting attributes. The first to consider is "import/export" attribute. For example: import: from AS12345 accept RIPE::AS12345:AS-CUSTOMER export: to AS12345 announce AS3561:AS-CUSTOMER This won't affect the database beckend too much. Then the ISP can use their own tools or IRRToolSet to build configuration using the information from the external registry directly. Your opinion is well appreciated. Thanks. Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net

2 1

Re: Final Minutes for DB WG at RIPE 41
by Lu, Ping 23 Jul '02

23 Jul '02

Hi, All, Sorry for the confusion, I am reposting my e-mail regarding "SRC::OBJECT" (response to item 3) again. Originally I proposed to implement "::" delimiter in "member:" attribute but this will probably impact the database integrity so it is simpler to start with "import:" and "export:" attributes. I think it is better to put the proposal in its own thread so people don't have to dig it out in its current form (sorry about that). I will reformat my proposal again in another email soon. Thanks. Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Lu, Ping [mailto:plu@cw.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 4:19 PM > To: 'George Michaelson' > Cc: db-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: RE: Software change requests for Ripe V3 code > > > Comments follwed. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: George Michaelson [mailto:ggm@apnic.net] > > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 8:27 AM > > To: db-wg(a)ripe.net > > Subject: Software change requests for Ripe V3 code > > > > > > > > I spoke to Joao and Andrei today about some changes APNIC would like > > to see in the ripe V3 code, and we all agreed that in the spirit of > > code management in an open process, they should be proposed here for > > wider community review. > > > > So I would like to submit the following three proposals for > > changes to the > > current code. > > > > > > 1) add country: [optional] [single] [ ] > > to objects in RPSL schema > > > > 2) add some -k behaviours to permit generation of DNS zones > > > > 3) add a cross-correlation attribute to objects > > > > I have no problem with item #1 and #2. However I have some comments > about #3. Please see the following comments. > > > > > > 1) add country: [optional] [single] [ ] to objects > > in RPSL schema > > > > APNIC currently uses R181 v2 perl to serve whois. We have > > existing data which > > is tagged by countrycode. We would like to maintain this > > information in an RPSL > > schema. > > > > We are manually adding the schema changes to the v3 code, but > > we feel it would > > serve wider convergeance of schema if this was in the global model. > > > > > > > > 2) add some -k behaviours to permit generation of DNS zones > > > > APNIC depends on locally developed code which reads the v2 > > .db files to > > generate a radix tree view of domain objects which are of the form > > > > domain: z.y.x.in-addr.arpa > > nserver: foo.bar.baz > > nserver: fu.bar > > > > this radix tree is then walked in /8 /16 and /24 forward order so > > we can make zonefiles for the byte aligned boundaries, and the > > matching bind named.conf inputs. > > > > We would like to be able to do this via a single pass, > > directly from the > > V3 server. WE have already demonstrated we can emit the > sorted list of > > the domain objects, and so a two pass process can be done, > > but it will have > > a far higher query load. So, we think this proposal will > > generate outcomes > > faster, and for less load on the server. > > > > We also think that this feature would be useful for people > > managing other > > DNS zones. > > > > > > > > 3) add a cross-correlation attribute to objects > > > > APNIC is investigating higher-level services for its > membership based > > on correlating data held across multiple servers. TO do > this, we need > > a cross-correlation key. We have also noticed that the > > discrete objects > > held by an organization in whois do not have any binding > > cross-reference > > except in a limited sense between nic-hdl and objects, or > > maintainer refs. > > > > I am proposing to implement the "::" delimiter specified in > RFC2725 chapter 9.6. > > === Quote Begin ==== > To specify an external repository reference, the > object key is preceded by the name of the repository and the > delimiter "::". For example a NIC handle may take the form > "RIPE::CO19". Currently there is a desire to keep NIC > handles unique > so the naming convention of appending a dash and the > repository name > is used. Prepending the repository name provides the unique name > space since an object in the RIPE database referencing "CO19" would > be interpreted as "RIPE::CO19" by default, but it would still be > possible to query or reference "IANA::CO19". There is no > possibility > of accidentally forgetting to adhere to the conventions when making > an addition and the existing objects are accommodated, including > cases where name conflicts have already occurred. > === Quote End ==== > > May I suggest that RIPE NCC to implement this first on a > limited set of > attributes that > need to cross-reference object in other source but don't need > a foreign-key > to ensure the integrity of the back-end database. > > For example: > > as-set: AS-TEST > descr: TEST-CW-OBJECT > members: CW::AS3561, CW::AS-CWTRANSIT > tech-c: PL1-RIPE > admin-c: PL1-RIPE > notify: plu(a)cw.net > mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-MNT > changed: plu(a)cw.net 20011004 > source: RIPE > > So the "members:" attribute accepts CW::AS3561, > CW::AS-CWTRANSIT but it is > upto > the client-side tool ( RAToolSet comes into mind ) to deal with the > infomation. > > Later RIPE NCC can implement > tech-c: CW::PL1-CW > mnt-by: CW::CW > but this is more involved regarding the database integrity issue. > > > > > While we think we can mimic this behaviour by overloading > > mnt-by: we would > > perfer this is implemented as a new attribute and object, > so there is > > no risk of side effects (eg mnt-by implies rights to change, > > and we don't > > want to do that in this context) > > > > I will think this is to address a different type of > cross-reference that > imply the whole object is in other RR, is it ? > > > > > > comments welcome! > > > > cheers > > -George > > -- > > George Michaelson | APNIC > > Email: ggm(a)apnic.net | PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064 > > Phone: +61 7 3367 0490 | Australia > > Fax: +61 7 3367 0482 | http://www.apnic.net > > > > > > Ping Lu > Cable & Wireless USA > Network Tools and Analysis Group > W: +1-703-292-2359 > E: plu(a)cw.net >

1 0

RE: Final Minutes for DB WG at RIPE 41
by Lu, Ping 23 Jul '02

23 Jul '02

Hi, Nigel, About {AP-41.8 C&W] > [AP-41.2 C&W] To send their proposal to allow referencing external > objects in the DB to the mailing list for discussion. > Ongoing, no action yet We made a proposal to allow "import: from SRC::ASN:AS-SET" for using data from other source of registry data. I haven't seen any formal response from RIPE NCC yet. This shouldn't affect the database referential integrity but will make RR closer to a distributed structure. Maybe the status is now "Complete, pending response from RIPE NCC" ? Agreed ? About {AP-41.8 C&W] > [AP-41.8 C&W] To formulate their proposals on the list for discussion. > Complete. No response from C&W. I think Andrei already responded to my email on this issue (check his e-mail on 3/11/2002 to the DB-WG). Basically we all agree to use "ADD + dummy object" action to filter out non-RPSL object in the NRTM stream. And I believe RIPE NCC already have a prototype for testing. Thus I considered this item closed. Agreed ? Thanks. Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Nigel Titley [mailto:nigel@packetexchange.net] > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 11:39 AM > To: db-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Final Minutes for DB WG at RIPE 41 > > > Folks, > > As I have had no comments following the posting of the > minutes in draft > form to this list and to the Ripe web site, I am publishing > the minutes > in final form (see below) > > Best regards > > Nigel > > > Minutes for the > Database Working Group Meeting > > RIPE-42, Apr. 29 - May 3, 2002, Amsterdam, NL > > > > Thursday, May 2nd, 2002 09:00-12:30 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > A. Administrative stuff (WW, chair) > . scribe (offer from Nigel received) > . circulate list of participants > . agenda bashing > . status of minutes > Minutes have been circulated to the list in both draft and final > form and are posted to the web site. > > > B. Action Items > . status of actions > > [AP-41.1 WW] To send list of proposed updates to IRRToolSet to > mailing list for WG members to vote on. Deadline 3 weeks. > Ongoing, no action yet > > [AP-41.2 C&W] To send their proposal to allow > referencing external > objects in the DB to the mailing list for discussion. > Ongoing, no action yet > > [AP-41.3 RIPE-NCC] Create Documentation and BCP for IRT object. > Ongoing, some work done. > > [AP-41.4 ALL] Create IRT object and tag inetnum for all > appropriate > objects. > Ongoing, some objects created > > [AP-41.5 WW] To put together a group to put together a > short guidance > document to guide reference document writers. This team to > include Ruediger. > Ongoing, no action yet, nothing from Ruediger. > > [AP-41.6 RIPE-NCC] Put up a mailing list for the above > purpose and > advertise to the db-wg list. > Ongoing, no action yet > > [AP-41.7 RIPE-NCC] To investigate soluton for mirroring > "stickiness". > Complete, a solution is now available. > > [AP-41.8 C&W] To formulate their proposals on the list > for discussion. > Complete. No response from C&W. > > [AP-41.9 RIPE-NCC] To document the mirroring protocol and the > operational requirements of using it. > Ongoing. Some work done. > > [AP-41.10 RIPE-NCC] Provide nag message to maintainer owners > Ongoing. See presentation below. > > [AP-41.11 RIPE-NCC] Look at implementing MD5 password > authentication > Complete. > > [AP-41.12 RIPE-NCC] Look at general password > authentication methods > Ongoing. No action yet. > > C. DB update (RIPE NCC, Andrei R.) > Usual DB update. Presentation available on the www.ripe.net > web site. > . Operational update > 70% of queries are for IP addresses, 10% are domain references. > The rest are various, including person. > System is scaling well and average response time is less than > 1s, despite a doubling of load over the past year. > 50% of messages to ripe-dbm are spam. It is suggested that > a simple spam filter (To: or Cc: ripe-dbm) may reduce this. > Ticketing system to be introduced in the next few weeks. > > . Database developments > MD5-PW scheme introduced, based on md5-crypt. Available on test > database, soon to move into production. > MAIL-FROM now to be deprecated. Notification to go out > soon. 4 weeks > later updates will be rejected (except for maintainer object > updates). 4 weeks later submission will be rejected. Finally > 4 weeks later the MAIL-FROM attribute will be removed from all > maintainer objects. There is a suggestion that the same thing > should be done with NONE. The meeting formally approved > the MAIL-FROM > timeline. The process to start before the end of May. > > IRT object has been available since Jan 2002. Two IRT objects > have been created. Creation procedure still needs some > development. > > DB Consistency and Statistics project > 113 reports displaying 34000 inconsistences were produced. > Please act on these and fix data. > [AP-42.1 ALL] To check own data and correct inconsistencies if > possible. > > SYNCUPDATES prototype > Available in test as a syntax checker only so far. > > RRCC full prototype is ready > > IRRToolset is being managed. Update requests are very welcome. > > APNIC will be using the RIPE database code. The procedural > changes needed will be rolled into the main database code. > > DB Documentation > Structure and parts of several chapters are ready. Should be > consistent with LIR training. > > > D. Complex authentication scenarios (Alex G. SWITCH) > . Background > There are some scenarios which require multiple signatures. This > has revealed a small bug in the database which has been worked > around. > It is better to sign a clear text update rather than using mime > encapsulation. In the event of multiple signatures > being required > the clear text should be signed by the first > maintainer, then the > entire email signed again by the second maintainer. > [AP-42.2 RIPE-NCC] To send instructions on multiple credentials > to the DB working group mailing list. > > > E. Discussion on "hiding" credentials (RIPE NCC, N.N.) > . "shadow password" concept > The idea is to not include the encrypted credential in the whois > response. This prevents "brute force" attacks. However, > this breaks > with DB tradition of returning all attributes of all > objects when > requested and means that the DB can be the primary repository of > the data. > > A proposal for a two level authentication scheme was received > with full access for the DBA, but no password access from the > general public. It was pointed out that this was a > wider issue than > just the RIPE community, but was also being discussed > in the RPSLng > working groups. It was also pointed out that packages > are available > which can attack digested passwords. > The very valid point was raised that those who have > problems with > weak authentication methods, should use strong ones (eg PGP). > Objects to this were that Windows users had problems > with PGP and > its "complex" interface. > [AP-42.3 RIPE-NCC] To investigate the issues involved in shadow > passwords and multiple level authentication schemes. > [AP-42.3 Larry Blunk] To investigate the problems of > multiple hashed > passwords and the possibilies of embedding an ID within > the hash and > to submit a proposal to the working group. > A proposal came from Janos to embed such information in > the remarks > field. > > F. IRT Object creation process > The technical implementation is in place. Procedures > need some work. > Two IRT objects are registered so far. > Objects need some authentication, to give them some cedibility. > A "trusted introducer" currently provides > authentication and labelling > when an object is created. This may need updating. > There is a meeting > on the 23 - 24th May in Copenhagen on Computer Security IRT > coordination. Attend if appropriate. > > G. Org object? > This has been discussed in the past. Were people still > interested > in creating this object? APNIC and ARIN also carry > these objects. > This might be used in the registration of inet-nums. > The role object > partially answers this need, but cannot be used for an > admin-contact. > An org object could also be used to make a LIR object > more visible > and allow remote updating. The question also arises as > to whether > the owners of PI space could create org objects. > > H. Migration of objects between registries > This is affecting legacy address space which pre-dates > RIRs. This > is currently in the ARIN database. It is proposed to > migrate this data > to the appropriate geographic RIR database. A great > deal of inter-RIR > liasison has already taken place. A number of > approaches are possible, > ranging from moving the data completely, using the > referral mechanism, > carrying all data in all databases etc. > The thing that mustn't happen is to delete more up to > to date data in > the non-authoritative database in favour of old data in the > authoritative database. > It has been suggested that the "delegated" attribute be used to > implement. This would only be used for inet-num and > as-set objects. > The issue was raised that one of the top level domain > servers is in > the 192.0.0.0/8 block, and deletion of the route > objects for this would > be disastrous. The response to this is that there was > no intention > to move route objects, just inet-num objects. > > I. Input from other WGs > No other input > > J. AOB: > No other business. > > >

4 3

RE: Final Minutes for DB WG at RIPE 41
by Lu, Ping 22 Jul '02

22 Jul '02

>From RFC2725 (maybe this is not part of RPSL ?): ================================================================== 9.6 Other Objects Many of the RPSL ancillary objects have no natural hierarchy the way AS numbers, Internet addresses and routes do have a numeric hierarchy. Some examples are "maintainers", "people" and "role" objects. For these objects, lack of any hierarchy leads to two problems. 1. There is no hierarchy that can be exploited to direct queries to alternate registries. At some point the query strategy of searching all known registries becomes impractical. 2. There is no hierarchy on which authorizations of additions can be based. The first problem can be addressed by considering the name space for each of the ancillary objects to be unique only within the local database and to use explicit references to an external repository where needed. To specify an external repository reference, the object key is preceded by the name of the repository and the delimiter "::". For example a NIC handle may take the form "RIPE::CO19". Currently there is a desire to keep NIC handles unique so the naming convention of appending a dash and the repository name is used. Prepending the repository name provides the unique name space since an object in the RIPE database referencing "CO19" would be interpreted as "RIPE::CO19" by default, but it would still be possible to query or reference "IANA::CO19". There is no possibility of accidentally forgetting to adhere to the conventions when making an addition and the existing objects are accommodated, including cases where name conflicts have already occurred. ================================================================== There is a need to address the "external repository reference" problem for a long time. It is in the RFC already and just no implementation to support the solution yet. Now I think is the time to take this issue seriously (at least for "import:" and "export:" :) Best Regards. Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Prior [mailto:mrp@mrp.net] > Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 6:38 AM > To: Lu, Ping; 'Nigel Titley'; db-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: RE: Final Minutes for DB WG at RIPE 41 > > > At 2:33 PM -0400 19/7/02, Lu, Ping wrote: > >Hi, Nigel, > > > >About {AP-41.8 C&W] > >> [AP-41.2 C&W] To send their proposal to allow > referencing external > >> objects in the DB to the mailing list for discussion. > >> Ongoing, no action yet > >We made a proposal to allow "import: from SRC::ASN:AS-SET" > for using data > >from other source of registry data. I haven't seen any > formal response from > >RIPE NCC yet. This shouldn't affect the database referential > integrity but > >will make RR closer to a distributed structure. Maybe the > status is now > >"Complete, pending response from RIPE NCC" ? Agreed ? > > That would require a change to the RPSL standard and I haven't seen > any internet drafts suggesting such a change. > > Mark. >

1 0

Final Minutes for DB WG at RIPE 41
by Nigel Titley 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

Folks, As I have had no comments following the posting of the minutes in draft form to this list and to the Ripe web site, I am publishing the minutes in final form (see below) Best regards Nigel Minutes for the Database Working Group Meeting RIPE-42, Apr. 29 - May 3, 2002, Amsterdam, NL Thursday, May 2nd, 2002 09:00-12:30 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A. Administrative stuff (WW, chair) . scribe (offer from Nigel received) . circulate list of participants . agenda bashing . status of minutes Minutes have been circulated to the list in both draft and final form and are posted to the web site. B. Action Items . status of actions [AP-41.1 WW] To send list of proposed updates to IRRToolSet to mailing list for WG members to vote on. Deadline 3 weeks. Ongoing, no action yet [AP-41.2 C&W] To send their proposal to allow referencing external objects in the DB to the mailing list for discussion. Ongoing, no action yet [AP-41.3 RIPE-NCC] Create Documentation and BCP for IRT object. Ongoing, some work done. [AP-41.4 ALL] Create IRT object and tag inetnum for all appropriate objects. Ongoing, some objects created [AP-41.5 WW] To put together a group to put together a short guidance document to guide reference document writers. This team to include Ruediger. Ongoing, no action yet, nothing from Ruediger. [AP-41.6 RIPE-NCC] Put up a mailing list for the above purpose and advertise to the db-wg list. Ongoing, no action yet [AP-41.7 RIPE-NCC] To investigate soluton for mirroring "stickiness". Complete, a solution is now available. [AP-41.8 C&W] To formulate their proposals on the list for discussion. Complete. No response from C&W. [AP-41.9 RIPE-NCC] To document the mirroring protocol and the operational requirements of using it. Ongoing. Some work done. [AP-41.10 RIPE-NCC] Provide nag message to maintainer owners Ongoing. See presentation below. [AP-41.11 RIPE-NCC] Look at implementing MD5 password authentication Complete. [AP-41.12 RIPE-NCC] Look at general password authentication methods Ongoing. No action yet. C. DB update (RIPE NCC, Andrei R.) Usual DB update. Presentation available on the www.ripe.net web site. . Operational update 70% of queries are for IP addresses, 10% are domain references. The rest are various, including person. System is scaling well and average response time is less than 1s, despite a doubling of load over the past year. 50% of messages to ripe-dbm are spam. It is suggested that a simple spam filter (To: or Cc: ripe-dbm) may reduce this. Ticketing system to be introduced in the next few weeks. . Database developments MD5-PW scheme introduced, based on md5-crypt. Available on test database, soon to move into production. MAIL-FROM now to be deprecated. Notification to go out soon. 4 weeks later updates will be rejected (except for maintainer object updates). 4 weeks later submission will be rejected. Finally 4 weeks later the MAIL-FROM attribute will be removed from all maintainer objects. There is a suggestion that the same thing should be done with NONE. The meeting formally approved the MAIL-FROM timeline. The process to start before the end of May. IRT object has been available since Jan 2002. Two IRT objects have been created. Creation procedure still needs some development. DB Consistency and Statistics project 113 reports displaying 34000 inconsistences were produced. Please act on these and fix data. [AP-42.1 ALL] To check own data and correct inconsistencies if possible. SYNCUPDATES prototype Available in test as a syntax checker only so far. RRCC full prototype is ready IRRToolset is being managed. Update requests are very welcome. APNIC will be using the RIPE database code. The procedural changes needed will be rolled into the main database code. DB Documentation Structure and parts of several chapters are ready. Should be consistent with LIR training. D. Complex authentication scenarios (Alex G. SWITCH) . Background There are some scenarios which require multiple signatures. This has revealed a small bug in the database which has been worked around. It is better to sign a clear text update rather than using mime encapsulation. In the event of multiple signatures being required the clear text should be signed by the first maintainer, then the entire email signed again by the second maintainer. [AP-42.2 RIPE-NCC] To send instructions on multiple credentials to the DB working group mailing list. E. Discussion on "hiding" credentials (RIPE NCC, N.N.) . "shadow password" concept The idea is to not include the encrypted credential in the whois response. This prevents "brute force" attacks. However, this breaks with DB tradition of returning all attributes of all objects when requested and means that the DB can be the primary repository of the data. A proposal for a two level authentication scheme was received with full access for the DBA, but no password access from the general public. It was pointed out that this was a wider issue than just the RIPE community, but was also being discussed in the RPSLng working groups. It was also pointed out that packages are available which can attack digested passwords. The very valid point was raised that those who have problems with weak authentication methods, should use strong ones (eg PGP). Objects to this were that Windows users had problems with PGP and its "complex" interface. [AP-42.3 RIPE-NCC] To investigate the issues involved in shadow passwords and multiple level authentication schemes. [AP-42.3 Larry Blunk] To investigate the problems of multiple hashed passwords and the possibilies of embedding an ID within the hash and to submit a proposal to the working group. A proposal came from Janos to embed such information in the remarks field. F. IRT Object creation process The technical implementation is in place. Procedures need some work. Two IRT objects are registered so far. Objects need some authentication, to give them some cedibility. A "trusted introducer" currently provides authentication and labelling when an object is created. This may need updating. There is a meeting on the 23 - 24th May in Copenhagen on Computer Security IRT coordination. Attend if appropriate. G. Org object? This has been discussed in the past. Were people still interested in creating this object? APNIC and ARIN also carry these objects. This might be used in the registration of inet-nums. The role object partially answers this need, but cannot be used for an admin-contact. An org object could also be used to make a LIR object more visible and allow remote updating. The question also arises as to whether the owners of PI space could create org objects. H. Migration of objects between registries This is affecting legacy address space which pre-dates RIRs. This is currently in the ARIN database. It is proposed to migrate this data to the appropriate geographic RIR database. A great deal of inter-RIR liasison has already taken place. A number of approaches are possible, ranging from moving the data completely, using the referral mechanism, carrying all data in all databases etc. The thing that mustn't happen is to delete more up to to date data in the non-authoritative database in favour of old data in the authoritative database. It has been suggested that the "delegated" attribute be used to implement. This would only be used for inet-num and as-set objects. The issue was raised that one of the top level domain servers is in the 192.0.0.0/8 block, and deletion of the route objects for this would be disastrous. The response to this is that there was no intention to move route objects, just inet-num objects. I. Input from other WGs No other input J. AOB: No other business.

1 0

configuring ripe-dbase-3.1.0
by Sun Guonian 19 Jul '02

19 Jul '02

Dear Madam/Sir, I want to upgrade our whois server from ripe-dbase-2.3 to the new version ripe-dbase-3.1.0. in the last version(2.3), I can modify two files, conf/ripedb.config and lib/syntax.pl, to add new objects/attributes to offer chinese information to our clients. But in the new version, I can't find the proper mothed to do it. would you mind to help me to solve this problem ? Thanks very much ! Best regards, Sun Guonian China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC)

2 1

Draft document "New Values of the 'status:' attribute for inet6num Objects" is available
by Andrei Robachevsky 17 Jul '02

17 Jul '02

Dear Colleagues, [apologies for duplicate messages] The draft document "New Values of the 'status:' attribute for inet6num Objects" is available on the RIPE NCC website at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/draft-documents/ This document describes the new values of the "status:" attribute for inet6num objects and their impact on database operation. The deadline for comments and suggestions is Wednesday, 24th July. After incorporating any suggested changes to the document the final document will be published as a RIPE Document. On Thursday, 25th July, subject to any additional comments, the described Database functionality will be put in to practice. Please send your comments and suggestions to <lir-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC

1 0

RE: [lir-wg] Discussion Summary: Status field for inet6num object s
by Guy Davies 08 Jul '02

08 Jul '02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I would prefer RIR-LIR-ALLOCATED, LIR-SUB-ALLOCATED and LIR-USER-ASSIGNED (or similar) if we must keep ALLOCATED and ASSIGNED in the descriptions. I don't think that it is immediately clear from the proposals below whether LIR-ALLOCATED is allocated by an LIR or to an LIR. Regards, Guy > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:42 PM > To: leo vegoda > Cc: ipv6-wg(a)ripe.net; lir-wg(a)ripe.net; db-wg(a)ripe.net; > sig-db(a)apnic.net; > policy-db(a)apnic.net; apnic-talk(a)apnic.net > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Discussion Summary: Status field for inet6num > objects > > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 06:21:24PM +0200, leo vegoda wrote: > > The RIPE NCC needs to implement a new status attribute for the > > inet6num object to reflect the new policy agreed by the RIPE, > > ARIN and APNIC communities. > > > > The RIPE NCC suggested the following new status attributes for > > the inet6num objects: > > > > - RIR-ALLOCATED > > (For allocations made by an RIR to an LIR) > > > > - LIR-ALLOCATED > > (For allocations made by an LIR or an LIR's downstream > > customer > > to another downstream organisation) > > > > - ASSIGNED > > (For assignments made to End User sites) > > I haven't seen any replies to this so far. > > I want to express that I like this proposal. It doesn't introduce > any new and yet-undefined terms, but makes clear what the status of > a given network is. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: > 45809 (45931) > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.1 iQA/AwUBPSmLLo3dwu/Ss2PCEQIJdQCeOKDqqTLKCuB+o3pWMj/XJ41QJMQAnROW EWRBiRI4rPpF9DRbhrxYcK0S =Rab7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If misdirected, please notify us by telephone and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any information contained in it. We use reasonable endeavors to virus scan all e-mails leaving the Company but no warranty is given that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. You should undertake your own virus checking. The right to monitor e-mail communications through our network is reserved by us.

2 1

Status field for inet6num objects
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 08 Jul '02

08 Jul '02

[** Mail posted to both APNIC and RIPE lists in the hopes of trying to find a solution suitable for all users of RIPE or RIPE-derived software **] Dear all, the inet6num, like the inetnum object, has a field named "status" which stores some information about the nature or position of a block of addresses in the delegation chain, from the RIR through to the end user. Currently, the status field for inet6num object is generated by the Database software based on the size of the address block and its possible values are: o TLA o SubTLA o NLA o SLA This notation has been deprecated and it is time to adapt the database. Discussions on this matter have identified the usefulness of having the capability to distinguish between allocations made by the RIR, allocations made by an LIR or their customers and assignments to end users. As such, we propose to modify the "status" attribute of the inet6num object to be: a) not-generated. This means users must assign a value to the status attribute when creating the object, just as in the inetnum object b) have the following possible values: RIR-allocated LIR-allocated Assigned to be used according to the following set of rules: The RIR-allocated status can only be used in objects representing allocations created directly by the RIR. The LIR-allocated status can be used by LIRs and their customers to represent blocks of addresses that are not assigned to specific end users. There can be several levels of objects with this status. The Assigned status must be used in objects representing assignments to end users (households, companies, enterprises, etc) We hope that with this modification the information in the Database will more accurately describe the registration of IPv6 address space. A possible transition to the new values could be: 1) RIRs modify status fields for allocations 2) Any new objects and modifications to existing ones must have a value for the status field corresponding to the ones described above. Otherwise the update will fail. 3) RIRs contact LIRs to have the status of assignments and sub-allocations updated. Best regards, Joao Damas RIPE NCC

5 4

RPSL Object Parsing Library version 3.1.0
by RIPE Database Administration 08 Jul '02

08 Jul '02

Dear Colleagues, [Apologies for multiple messages]. The RPSL Object Parsing library version 3.1.0 is now available for download in source format. This is the library that the RIPE Whois server uses to parse and manipulate RPSL objects. It implements the same syntax as the RIPE Whois server version 3.1.0, and provides both C and Perl API's. In future, we will release this library simultaneously with new versions of the server software. You can download this release by anonymous FTP from the following URL: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/software/RPSL-OL-3.1.0.tar.gz If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions, please e-mail the database development team at <dbrip(a)ripe.net>. -- Shane Kerr RIPE NCC

1 0

as-set: question
by Marco Davids 05 Jul '02

05 Jul '02

Listmembers, I have a question concerning chapter '1.2.2 as-set' of document ripe-251. I believe that I found an as-set record that is not right, but I am not exactly sure (allright, our maxpand-script found the strange record, because it choked on it). It concerns AS-KQES: marco@achilles:~$ whois AS-KQES | more % This is the RIPE Whois server. % The objects are in RPSL format. % Please visit http://www.ripe.net/rpsl for more information. % Rights restricted by copyright. % See http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/copyright.html as-set: AS-KQES descr: Macro for KPNQwest Spain members: AS2134 # KPNQwest Spain members: AS8318 # Valenciana de Cementos members: AS-JAZZTRANS # Jazz Telecom - JazzNet announces members: AS12430 # AIRTEL members: AS12479 # Uni2 Are these #-remarks in compliance with the RIPE-documents? And if not, should such input be refused by the check? Greetings, -- Marco Davids SARA / High Performance Networking - Amsterdam "A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

2 1

New Document available: RIPE-251
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 04 Jul '02

04 Jul '02

New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-251 Title: RIPE Database Reference Manual Author: Joao Luis Silva Damas, Andrei Robachevsky Date: 4 July 2002 Format: PS=280763 TXT=126186 Obsoletes: ripe-238 Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- The latest version of the RIPE Database reference manual. This document includes information about the MD5-PW Authentication method. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE Database Reference Manual in HTML format via WWW at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/databaseref-manual.html The RIPE document store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-251.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-251.txt plain text version Kind Regards, RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service

1 0

Draft document "IRT Object in the RIPE Database" is available
by Andrei Robachevsky 04 Jul '02

04 Jul '02

Dear Colleagues, The draft document "IRT Object in the RIPE Database" is available on the RIPE NCC website at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/draft-documents/irt-object.html This document describes the irt object and related functionality in the RIPE Database. The irt object is used to provide information about a Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT). This document also describes the creation procedure for the irt object. The deadline for comments and suggestions is Thursday, 18 July 2002. After incorporating any suggested changes to the document the final document will be published as a RIPE Document. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC

1 0

RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by Guy Davies 20 Jun '02

20 Jun '02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: Nigel Titley [mailto:nigel@titley.com] > > On Wed, 2002-06-12 at 07:11, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > At 06:00 AM 6/12/2002, Geoff Huston wrote: > > >However, the distinction between "ALLOCATED" and > "ASSIGNED" is perhaps a bit subtle. > > > > When these attributes were created, those particular words > were in deemed both descriptive and clear. > > Maybe the language concerned has shifted underneath in the > meantime ;-). > > As a native speaker of one of its dialects, would you make > a suggestion for improvement? > > Well actually as a native speaker of (another) of its dialects, > I've never considered the distinction of ALLOCATED and ASSIGNED to > be other than subtle. I'd much prefer DELEGATED and ASSIGNED or > some such. This may be a matter of taste however. I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses. Just my two pence... Regards, Guy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.1 iQA/AwUBPQca4I3dwu/Ss2PCEQJv6ACeMa1ZbnoN3P7r6VaBANGPa1yXN9UAoMLQ cJpgKn6FvDPmyD1X02WLXJF3 =yl1x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- This e-mail is private and may be confidential and is for the intended recipient only. If misdirected, please notify us by telephone and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and any copies destroyed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, copying, distributing or disseminating this e-mail or any information contained in it. We use reasonable endeavors to virus scan all e-mails leaving the Company but no warranty is given that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. You should undertake your own virus checking. The right to monitor e-mail communications through our network is reserved by us.

8 7

New Document available: RIPE-239
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 14 Jun '02

14 Jun '02

New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised/new document is available from the RIPE document store. "New Values of the "status:" Attribute for Inetnum Objects (LIR-PARTITIONED) (ripe-239)" Short content description ------------------------- This document describes the new value of the "status:" attribute for inetnum objects and its impact on the RIPE Database operation. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- The document is on-line at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/lir-partitioned.html The RIPE document store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs/. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-239.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-239.txt plain text version Kind Regards, RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service

1 0

RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

>For me these two phrases, DELEGATED-TO-LIR and >ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER, hit the spot precisely! >excellent suggestion Guy! >Is it appropriate to request consideration of these terms as replacements >for ASSIGNED and ALLOCATED? Wouldn't it be a good idea to standardize the terminology with ARIN and others? In that case, the term LIR would be considered obscure and meaningless. Since all LIRs are service providers of some sort, either ISPs or an internal network service provider, I think that a standard terminology should try to use generic terms. That would mean either DELEGATED-TO-SVC-PROVIDER or DELEGATED-TO-NSP if you like acronyms (Network Service Provider). In any case, because the distinction between "allocated" and "assigned" has been unclear in the past and because there is a significant shift in terminology from "allocated" to "delegated" this change should be incorporated in an informational RFC. This document would help in clarifying that there is indeed a difference between the two states of an address block and would also help in promoting the use of this terminology amongst the community that deal with IP address delegations and assignments. DELEGATED-TO-NSP and ASSIGNED-TO-USER are two terms that would be clear worldwide. Michael Dillon Network Product Engineering Radianz

2 1

Re: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by Geoff Huston 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

>To clarify, the values that APNIC would prefer to use are: > >ALLOCATED PORTABLE >ALLOCATED NON-PORTABLE >ASSIGNED PORTABLE >ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE > >As I mentioned before, these values would be consistent with those in >IPv4 (which take effect in August when the migration to version 3 of the >RIPE database is complete). > >Comments? I would be in favour of this clarity in the field regarding PORTABLE and NON_PORTABLE. However, the distinction between "ALLOCATED" and "ASSIGNED" is perhaps a bit subtle. regards, Geoff

6 5

Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 13 Jun '02

13 Jun '02

>Allocation and assign do have definitions - could these be improved >to clarify the meaning? Or does 'delegate' simply convey a much >clearer intention with the address space? Delegation is clearer for two reasons. Firstly, it implies that the the delegator is passing on some responsibility for the address space. The organization receiving a delegation is responsible for managing and administering the addresses. In the case of an assignment, this is less true. For instance, ISPs regularly reassign addresses after a customer disconnects and everyone seems to understand that addresses assignments are controlled by the assigner and can be withdrawn. The second reason has more to do with psychology. Because the terms "allocation" and "assignment" are similar in meaning and visually similar, they are easily confused by a lot of people. They both begin with "a" followed by a double consonant and end with a latin suffix. Of course, clear definitions are always a good thing as well. Michael Dillon Network Product Engineering Radianz

1 0

RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by kevin.bates＠bt.com 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

seems better but not perfect - the important thing is to get all databases looking the same and using the same terms? strictly speaking it is not "ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER" its "ASSIGNED-TO-SUBNET-USER" for example it could be part of a DHCP dial up pool and thus only " leased" for the duration of that connexion. > At 11:56 AM 6/12/2002, Guy Davies wrote: > >I tend to agree with Nigel, although I'd go for something even > >plainer like DELEGATED-TO-LIR and ASSIGNED-TO-END-USER (I know > >they're a bit verbose but they're absolutely clear ;-) It also makes > >clear that addresses assigned to an LIR in the role of END-USER are > >exactly that. That way, an individual who is struggling with English > >as a second language (or even their first language ;-) can be > >absolutely clear of the status of a range of addresses. > > This is an excellent idea. However I would use > ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER. > That way we clarify the subtle difference while > maintaining consistency with existing documentation. > > (If I remember correctly the term DELEGATED was suggested at the time, > but not used because of its usage in the DNS context as well as > the connotation of total transfer of authority over the resource which > is not quite the case.) > > Daniel

2 1

RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by Geoff Huston 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

> > This is an excellent idea. However I would use > > ALLOCATED_TO_LIR and ASSIGNED_TO_END_USER. > > That way we clarify the subtle difference while > > maintaining consistency with existing documentation. > > > > (If I remember correctly the term DELEGATED was suggested at the time, > > but not used because of its usage in the DNS context as well as > > the connotation of total transfer of authority over the resource which > > is not quite the case.) To me "DELEGATED-TO-LIR" makes sense, as it infers that the process of further delegation can be used with sub-blocks and/or atomic units can be "ASSIGNED-TO-END-USERs with the inference that no further sub assignments are anticipated. Geoff

1 0

RE: [apnic-talk] Status field for inet6num objects
by Michel Py 12 Jun '02

12 Jun '02

> Anne Lord wrote: > There is no PI in IPv6. > This can't be said often enough. We are working on two new types of v6 addresses that are neither PA nor PI for multihoming. Please keep in mind that PA does not provide enough functionality; if no multihoming protocol is released in a timely manner you will inevitably have PI, or whatever you want to call everyone becoming a LIR. Michel.

1 0

MD5-PW auth scheme is available in the RIPE Database
by Andrei Robachevsky 17 May '02

17 May '02

Dear Colleagues, [apologies for duplicate messages] Following the request from the RIPE Community a new auth scheme based on MD5-crypt algorithm was implemented and put into production today, 16 May 2002. Implementation details can be found in the proposal circulated in the db-wg mailing list http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/20020401-20020701/msg00011.html. We also created another FAQ entry "How to use MD5-PW auth scheme in my mntner?" (http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/faq/database/qa5.html#13). The RIPE Database Reference Manual will be updated soon. You may use Crypt CGI interface (http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/cgicrypt.pl.cgi) to convert your passphrase to MD5-PW string. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky DB Group RIPE NCC

3 3

Phasing out MAIL-FROM auth scheme
by Andrei Robachevsky 16 May '02

16 May '02

Dear Colleagues, [apologies for duplicate messages] The MAIL-FROM authentication scheme is very weak. Forging RFC2822 headers can be done very easily. With the existence of more secure "auth" schemes in the RIPE Database, it does not make much sense to support it any more. The proposal to phase out the MAIL-FROM authentication scheme was presented to the to the Database Working group. You may find the original proposal at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/20020101-20020401/msg00066.html The timeline for this transition presented below was discussed and approved at the RIPE 42 meeting. Please see the minutes of the DB-WG session http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/db/minutes/ripe-42.html. To make this transition more smooth we prepared a page with step by step instructions how to update the mntner objects to remove the MAIL-FROM auth scheme. It can be found at http://www.ripe.net/db/MD5-HOWTO.html Regards, Andrei Robachevsky DB Group Manager RIPE NCC Transition phases ================== Use of MAIL-FROM is phased out in four steps, on the following dates: Phase 1: 16 May 2002 - 12 June 2002 Notifying mntners with MAIL-FROM auth scheme -------------------------------------------- An announcement presenting this transition and encouraging the owners of the mntners to remove MAIL-FROM auth scheme from their objects will be sent on 16 May, 2002. The announcement will point to instructions how to update the mntner objects to remove the MAIL-FROM auth scheme. The distribution list will be compiled from e-mail addresses listed in "upd-to:", "mnt-nfy:" attributes of the mntners, as well as using contact information (e-mail) from "admin-c:" and "tech-c:" references. Phase 2: 13 June 2002 - 10 July 2002 Rejecting updates for mntner objects containing MAIL-FROM auth scheme --------------------------------------------------------------------- When updating maintainers the new version must not contain MAIL-FROM "auth:" attributes, otherwise this will be reported as a syntax error. This means that you cannot create any new MAIL-FROM "auth:" attributes, either in new or existing maintainers. Phase 3: 11 July 2002 - 7 August 2002 Rejecting using the MAIL-FROM auth scheme for authorisation ----------------------------------------------------------- When processing an update for an object protected by a mntner that contains MAIL-FROM auth scheme, this scheme will be ignored. That means that if mntner defines other auth schemes different from MAIL-FROM, the credentials relevant to these schemes may be used. If the only auth scheme defined is MAIL-FROM, no update can be authorised by such mntner. Phase 4: 8 August 2002 Cleanup ------- The mntners still containing "auth:" attribute with the MAIL-FROM auth scheme will be modified so that such attributes will be removed from the objects. Before this a final call will be sent to the owners of these mntners ("upd-to:", "mnt-nfy:" attributes of the mntners, as well as to the contacts from "admin-c:" and "tech-c:" references). A "remarks:" attribute will be added with clear explanation of the situation. In case a mntner contains only one "auth" scheme, which is MAIL-FROM, it will be locked and cannot be used by the owner.

2 1