- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

New Document available: RIPE-243
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 05 Aug '02

05 Aug '02

New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised/new document is available from the RIPE document store: "New Values of the "status:" Attribute for inet6num Objects". Short content description ------------------------- This document describes the new values of the "status:" attribute for inet6num objects and their impact on database operation. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. "New Values of the "status:" Attribute for inet6num Objects" is available from the WWW at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/docs/new-value-status.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-243.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-243.txt plain text version Kind Regards, Jeroen Bet Webmaster RIPE NCC

1 0

Actions web page
by Nigel Titley 30 Jul '02

30 Jul '02

Folks, Please note that there is now a separate actions page on the DB WG web site. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/db/db-actions.html Check now and avoid embarrassment at the next WG meeting :-) All the best NIgel

1 0

fwd: Re: New draft: "New Values of the 'status:' attribute for inet6num Objects"
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

Sorry, I forgot to cc: the DB-WG list :-( I guess we should keep this thread in the LIR-WG list for the moment. Apologies for the mix-up, Wilfried. ______________________________________________________________________ From: ACCESS::WOEBER "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" 26-JUL-2002 11:39:50.52 To: MX%"leo(a)ripe.net" CC: MX%"lir-wg(a)ripe.net",WOEBER Subj: Re: New draft: "New Values of the 'status:' attribute for inet6num Objects" Dear Leo and "Team", >The new draft is available from our web site at: > ><http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/new-value-status.html> Looks good! >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>. Procedural question: How are we going to modify existing objects to conform to this proposal? Right now the template query returns: bash-2.05a$ wripe -t inet6num [ ... ] inet6num: [mandatory] [single] [primary/look-up key] [ ... ] status: [generated] [single] [ ] [ ... ] and it seems to be "optional" for the (new) ALLOCATED-BY-RIR case: bash-2.05a$ wripe -r 2001:0628::/35 [ ... ] inet6num: 2001:0628::/35 netname: AT-ACONET-19990920 descr: ACOnet Sub-TLA block country: AT admin-c: WW144 tech-c: WW144 tech-c: WK42 tech-c: CP8-RIPE notify: Domain-Admin(a)UniVie.ac.at mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: ACONET-LIR-MNT changed: hostmaster(a)ripe.net 19990920 changed: hostmaster(a)ripe.net 20011019 source: RIPE Is this going to change? E.g. to: status: [mandatory] [single] [ ] The wording used in the draft seems to indicate [optional] [single] [ ]. I think some clarification would be helpful. Thanks, cheers, Wilfried. _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

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