- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE Database Updates Off-line 2001-12-08
by RIPE Database Administration 09 Dec '01

09 Dec '01

RIPE Database Users: The RIPE database will be operating in query-only mode from 10:00 to 17:00 tommorrow, Saturday, 8 December 2001. Any updates that arrive during this time will be queued, and processed when the database returns to normal operation. All queries will be answered normally by our secondary server. We are adding a new disk to the server due to warnings reported by our SCSI controller. No data has been lost or damaged; this is simply a precaution. Apologies for any inconveniences. Sincerely, -- Shane Kerr RIPE Database Administration

2 1

mnt-routes in allocation objects
by Sabrina Waschke 05 Dec '01

05 Dec '01

Dear all, This is to inform you that the RIPE NCC Registration Services will update all inetnum objects representing allocations made by the RIPE NCC to Local IRs (status: ALLOCATED PA") adding a mnt-routes attribute. We will use the maintainer specified in the mnt-lower attribute of the particular inetnum object. We will only add a mnt-routes attribute to allocation objects that have exactly one mnt-lower attribute (*). The updates will start on Monday, 10th December 2001. Until the introduction of RPSL there was no mnt-routes attribute. Adding a mnt-routes attribute to the inetnum object representing your allocation will enable you to create route objects matching the exact size of your allocation object. (You might have to pass other authorisations.) For a graphical overview of "Route Object Creation - Getting Authorisation from IP Space" please see: <http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/faq/database/route-creation-IP-space-c heck.html>. For more information about route object please read: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/databaseref-manual.html#1.2.15> and <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/databaseref-manual.html#3.6.5>. (*) In general: If you want to update an object maintained by the RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT please send a message to <lir-help(a)ripe.net> including your registry ID and the revised object. Please note that we only accept these requests from official LIR contacts who are registered in our RIPE NCC internal registry files. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact <lir-help(a)ripe.net> including your registry ID. Kind regards, Sabrina Waschke -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Waschke sabrina(a)ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o

1 0

Can anyone shed some light on this?
by Stephen Burley 05 Dec '01

05 Dec '01

route: 212.249.0.0/16 descr: UUNET CH origin: AS702 mnt-by: AS702-MNT password: ********* changed: jsc(a)ch.uu.net 20011204 source: RIPE I send the above object to the DB and get the following error: New FAILED: [route] 212.249.0.0/16 route: 212.249.0.0/16 descr: UUNET CH origin: AS702 mnt-by: AS702-MNT changed: stephenb(a)uk.uu.net 20011204 source: RIPE ***Error: Hierarchical authorisation failed, request forwarded to maintainer. Objects in RIPE-181 format are no longer accepted. Please see http://www.ripe.net/rpsl for more information. RIPE Database Maintenance Department Which is strange as the mainainer is us AS702-mnt. Any help on this matter whould be appreciated as this is not the only one. Regards Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster SB855-RIPE

4 5

RE: Can anyone shed some light on this?
by Boyan Krosnov 05 Dec '01

05 Dec '01

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/databaseref-manual.html 3.6.5 Protection of route object space The route object creation must satisfy several authentication criteria. It must match the authentication specified in the aut-num and the authentication specified in either a route object or, if no applicable route object is found, then an inetnum. Finally the creation must be authorised by the maintainer of the route object itself referenced by the "mnt-by:" attribute of the object. When checking for prefix authorisation, an exact route object prefix match is checked for first. If there is no exact match, then a longest prefix match that is less specific than the prefix is searched for. If the route prefix search fails, then a search is performed for an inetnum object that exactly matches the prefix or for the most specific inetnum object that is less specific than the route object submission. The aut-num object used for authentication checks is referenced by the "origin:" attribute of the route object. A route object must pass authorisation from both the referenced aut-num object and the route or inetnum object. Authorisation shall be tested using the maintainer(s) referenced in the "mnt-routes:" attribute(s) first. If that check fails, the "mnt-lower:" attributes are checked. If that check fails, the "mnt-by:" attributes are used for the authorisation check. ---------- aut-num: AS702 as-name: AS702 descr: UUNET - Commercial IP service provider in Europe .... mnt-routes: UUNETDK-MNT mnt-routes: AS1270-MNT mnt-routes: AS1849-MNT mnt-routes: AS1890-MNT mnt-routes: IWAY-NOC mnt-by: UUNET-MNT --------- I bet you didn't pass this authorization check. does this shed a light? :) BR, CCNP Boyan Krosnov Network Administrator Lirex Net phone: +359-2-91815 > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Burley [mailto:stephenb@uk.uu.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 12:30 PM > To: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Cc: db-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Can anyone shed some light on this? > > > route: 212.249.0.0/16 > descr: UUNET CH > origin: AS702 > mnt-by: AS702-MNT > password: ********* > changed: jsc(a)ch.uu.net 20011204 > source: RIPE > > I send the above object to the DB and get the following error: > > New FAILED: [route] 212.249.0.0/16 > route: 212.249.0.0/16 > descr: UUNET CH > origin: AS702 > mnt-by: AS702-MNT > changed: stephenb(a)uk.uu.net 20011204 > source: RIPE > ***Error: Hierarchical authorisation failed, request forwarded to > maintainer. > > Objects in RIPE-181 format are no longer accepted. > Please see http://www.ripe.net/rpsl for more information. > > RIPE Database Maintenance Department > > Which is strange as the mainainer is us AS702-mnt. Any help > on this matter > whould be appreciated as this is not the only one. > > Regards > Stephen Burley > UUNET EMEA Hostmaster > SB855-RIPE > > > >

1 0

New Document available: RIPE-201
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 04 Dec '01

04 Dec '01

<Apologies for duplicate mails> New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised/new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-201 Title: Routing Registry Consistency Check Author: Joachim Schmitz, Engin Gunduz, Shane Kerr, Andrei Robachevsky, Joao Luis Silva Damas Date: 4 December 2001 Format: PS=33719 TXT=15425 Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- "Routing Registry Consistency Check" describes a project to crosscheck European Internet routing against data registered in the RIPE Routing Registry. This project was proposed as a new activity by the RIPE Routing Working Group. The document gives an overview of the project, discusses the implementation, and mentions some points that have to be addressed in future design documents. This document is intended to solicit input from interested parties. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is 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-201.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-201.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-201 is available at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/docs/rr-consistencycheck.html

1 0

Re: Object Metadata Proposal
by Janos Zsako 15 Nov '01

15 Nov '01

> From owner-db-wg(a)ripe.net Thu Nov 8 17:53:37 2001 > From: Andrei Robachevsky <andrei(a)ripe.net> Dear Andrei, I think both proposals (this one and the garbage collection) are very good and very useful. I just have a further suggestion and a question (I apologize if this has already been discussed). > Metadata Contents > ------------------ > Other meta-attributes may be added as needed. My suggestion would be to add a meta-attribute "creation-time:" which would store the date and time the object was created (as opposed to "update-time:", which only shows when it was last updated). This attribute would never change. The rationale behind having this attribute is that one would have a proof of the existence of the object in the database from (at least) creation-date (until at least query time). This may help for example auditing LIR assignments to the same end-user (which is limited to one AW worth in any 12 months). My question would be about the generation of the initial values (of update-time and ref-time) for the _existing_ objects. One aproach would be to use the "changed:" value for "update-time", and for "ref-time" the most recent "changed" value of the objects referencing the given object. The only problem is that we know "changed" is not (very) reliable. An other approach would be to use the time of the (initial) creation of the meta-attributes as initial value both for "update-time" and "ref-time". This is probably misleading. A better approach would probably be to leave these values empty, but this would not meet the current spec. The most exact approach would be to retrieve the exact values from the update logs, but this is probably too expensive. My question is which approach do you plan to take (one of the above or one I did not think about)? Thanks and regards, Janos

2 1

automatic DB cleanup proposal (v2)
by Andrei Robachevsky 08 Nov '01

08 Nov '01

Dear Colleagues, This is a slightly modified version of Ulf Kieber's proposal based now on metadata concept (please see "Object Metadata" proposal on the list next to this one). Your comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC ----------------------------------------------------- Automatic DB Cleanup proposal ============================= Motivation ---------- In the light of data privacy issues raised by governmental organizations and in RIPE Database Working Group sessions during RIPE-39 and RIPE-40, as well as following the Great Dangling Person Objects Deletion after de.* ccTLD move-out it is necessary to implement an automized garbage collection procedure to remove personal data that is unreferenced for a certain amount of time. Proposed Change --------------- Four meta-attibutes "update-time:", "ref-time:", "ref-count:" and "expire-time:" should be maintained and used for this purpose (*). The values of these meta-attributes would be a modification timestamp, reference counter modification timestamp, reference counter and object expiration time (if applicable) respectively. The reference counter would contain the number of objects still refering to this object, and thus be similar to the link counter of an inode in a UNIX file system. The modification timestamp would be updated whenever the object is updated. The reference counter modification timestamp would be updated whenever link counter changes. The analogy in the UNIX file system would be sort of mtime and ctime. The expiration time will be updated for person and role object only. For other object types it will be emplty meaning "not set". The expiration time will be updated whenever link counter reaches zero or changes from zero to a positive value. In the first case the expiration time will be calculated by adding the expiration period to the time when this event occured. In the second case the expiration time will be unset (empty value). A garbage collection process running on a periodic basis should then generate a deletion update (transaction) overriding authorization checks (**) for all person and role objects that reached their expiration time. The expiration period is to be discussed and agreed upon in the community. The initial proposal is 90 days. Explicit generation of an update (transaction) is needed for tracking/debugging purposes. (*) Please see the "Object Metadata" proposal. (**) Overriding authorization allows deletion of a maintained object to be performed. Respective maintainers will be notified. Overriding authorization still doesn't allow deletion of a referenced object.

1 0

Object Metadata Proposal
by Andrei Robachevsky 08 Nov '01

08 Nov '01

Dear Colleagues, Please review the proposal below. This proposal is supposed to provide means for reliable timestamping, and also support garbage collection procedure (please see "Automatic DB cleanup proposal" following this one). But of course the functionality can be expanded when needed. Your comments are welcome as always, Best regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC ------------------------------------------------------------- Object metadata proposal ======================== Motivation ---------- Several proposals already exist that require reliable status information about an object in the database, such as last update time, number of references, etc. These are requests for reliable timestamping and automatic cleanup procedure. In order to be reliable this information should be automatically generated by the database software and be outside users' control. Storing this information as part of the object data was generally considered not a good idea since this requires modifications to the object not solicited by the user, and breaks some basic principles of the RIPE Database. But in fact these attributes/facilities do not represent an object, but rather status information about the object. Extending Ulf Kieber's analogy with the Unix FS, they are part of the inode, not the data blocks. Object metadata --------------- Status information, or object metadata, will be automatically generated by the database, but stored and accessed separately from the object itself. This will not affect any object template, preserve users' data and add flexibility to the RIPE Database. Metadata Contents ------------------ Metadata contents will be presented as metadata attribute-value pairs, or meta-attributes. The initial set of meta-attributes is required by the above mentioned proposals and will include: update-time: <YYYY-MM-DD> <HH:MM:SS> This meta-attribute will store the time when the update (object creation or subsequent updates) was processed by the database software (when modification was made to the Database). ref-count: <number> The number of references to this object from other objects in the RIPE Database. Zero means the object is not referenced. ref-time: <YYYY-MM-DD> <HH:MM:SS> Last time the "ref-count:" was updated. It is empty if ref-count has never been updated. expire-time: <YYYY-MM-DD> <HH:MM:SS> This meta-attribute displays the time after which the object will be automatically deleted from the database overriding authorisation checks. Empty value of the meta-attribute means "not set". Please see "Automatic DB cleanup" proposal for more information. Other meta-attributes may be added as needed. Metadata will not propagate through NRTM. It is up to a NRTM client to generate the metadata as updates are processed. Querying Metadata ------------------ Object metatdata may be accessed by using "-q meta" flag when interrogating the database. This flag is can be used together with other queries, except other "-q" flags. Metadata of all objects returned will be displayed. An object metadata will be displayed after the object with a blank like between them. It is displayed as meta-attributes preceded by a '%' sign. According to RIPE whois definition a line starting with '%' sign should be generally considered as a comment and should be parsed at client's own risk. For example: $ whois -q meta RC1234-RIPE ... person: Referenced Contact nic-hdl: RC1234-RIPE ... changed: refcon(a)somedom.dom 20011005 source: RIPE %metainfo: RC1234-RIPE %update-time: 2001-10-05 16:50:07 %ref-time: 2001-10-06 09:17:33 %expire-time: %ref-count: 3 Using Metadata -------------- The metadata may be consulted by humans or metadata-aware clients for different purposes. The database software may use metadata for its garbage collection routine, or other internal processes.

1 0

LIR-PARTITIONED - Final version
by Nurani Nimpuno 23 Oct '01

23 Oct '01

Dear all, Following the announcement 28 Sep 2001 on these lists, please find below the final details of the LIR-PARTITIONED PROPOSAL. This proposal will be implemented by the RIPE NCC in the coming period and presented at the RIPE 41 meeting in January 2002. Comments and suggestions made on this list have been incorporated in the proposal below. +-----------------+ | LIR-PARTITIONED | +-----------------+ Background ----------- This proposal (initially named "LIR-ALLOCATED") was originally discussed at September 1999. James Aldridge later sent out a first proposal to the LIR-WG mailing list, 14 Jan 2000. (See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20000101-20000401/msg00007.ht…) The full final proposal (15 Jan 2001) by Aldridge can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20010101-20010401/msg00003.ht… At the RIPE 38 meeting,(22-26 Jan 2001), the RIPE NCC accepted the action to implement this proposal. Motivation (as expressed by James Aldridge) -------------------------------------------- "For various reasons large registries often need to distribute their allocated address space between various parts of their organisation (for example we have separate national operations in 20 or so countries obtaining address space through the eu.eunet registry). In these situations it makes sense to document this redistribution in the RIPE database but there is currently no way to do this without throwing up errors in the RIPE NCC's auditing procedures or by removing flexibility and adding more work to the already busy NCC hostmasters by having each local operation treated as having their own allocation. Previously the RIPE database software allowed anyone to register an object with a status value of "ALLOCATED" but this was abused by people who didn't know what they were doing and so this is no longer possible and all non-NCC registered inetnum objects must now have the status of "ASSIGNED". However, having multiple levels of assignments in the RIPE database causes error reports from the NCC's auditing processes which now see anything under the higher lever sub-allocation as being a duplicate (or overlapping) assignment which makes finding "real" problem assignments difficult or impossible. By allowing a local IR to register an inetnum object with a new status value of "LIR-ALLOCATED" it becomes possible to differentiate between a higher level sub-allocation ("status: LIR-ALLOCATED") and a final assignment by a LIR ("status: ASSIGNED"). By allowing this registration of intermediate objects it would also be possible to restrict changes to lower-level objects differently in different blocks of addresses within the LIR's allocation by setting different "mnt-lower" values without having to open the whole allocated block up for changes by anyone who might have a valid reason for updating a particular (range of) inetnum object(s)." Database Objects affected ------------------------- Only inetnum objects may have the "LIR-PARTITIONED" status value. Usage ----- The "LIR-PARTITIONED" feature allows LIRs to delegate maintenance of lower-level objects representing assignments within the address space specified by the inetnum object with the status "LIR-PARTITIONED PA" OR "LIR-PARTITIONED PI". Functionality ------------- When creating or modifying the inetnum object the database will check the value of the "status:" attribute according to the following rules: - The value of "ALLOCATED PA" or "ALLOCATED PI" is allowed if the object is maintained by the RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mntner (this name is specified in ALLOCMNT variable of the configuration file) - The value of "LIR-PARTITIONED PA" is allowed if one level less specific inetnum object contains a "status:" attribute with the value of "ALLOCATED PA" or "LIR-PARTITIONED PA". - The value of "LIR-PARTITIONED PI" is allowed if one level less specific inetnum object contains a "status:" attribute with the value of "ALLOCATED PI" or "LIR-PARTITIONED PI". Additional clarification ------------------------ This proposal addresses the added inetnum status value as proposed by James Aldridge. This is strictly a database feature, allowing LIRs to delegate maintenance within their allocations in the RIPE Database. The implementation of this proposal will not affect IP address allocation policy. This means that it will not affect the responsibility LIRs have for allocations and assignments held by them. Furthermore, it will not change the manner in which the RIPE NCC verifies allocation utilisation. There is an on-going policy discussion addressing this specific issue. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno *-----------------------------------* | Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)ripe.net> | | Internet Address Policy Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | *-----------------------------------*

1 0

changed attribute proposal and not only
by Andrei Robachevsky 11 Oct '01

11 Oct '01

Dear Colleagues, Please find enclosed the proposal of modification of the changed attribute that was presented at the RIPE-40 meeting in Prague. However, another proposal (or rather idea) came up in light of recent discussions regarding timestamping and cleanup procedures in the RIPE Database. Let me present you this idea first. As was pointed by the two proposals there is a need to store and display status information about an object in the database, such as last update time, number of references, etc. At the same time in order to be reliable this information should be automatically generated by the database software and be outside users' control. Regarding "changed attribute" proposal people felt that this changes some of the basic principles of the RIPE Database. Recent Ulf's proposal makes things even worse since it requires that modification to an object may be caused by an update of another object. But in fact these attributes/facilities do not represent an object, but rather status information about the object. Extending Ulf's analogy with the Unix FS, they are part of the inode, not the data blocks. So status information (object metadata) may be stored and displayed separately from the object itself by, say, using a flag. Much like we display the contents using cat, but status using ls. And this information will be used for cleanup procedure, reliable timestamping, etc. This will not affect any object template, preserve users' data and add flexibility to the database. Something like this: $ whois -q meta RC1234-RIPE ... person: Referenced Contact nic-hdl: RC1234-RIPE ... changed: refcon(a)somedom.dom 20011005 source: RIPE %metainfo: RC1234-RIPE %update-time: 2001-10-05 16:50:07 %ref-time: 2001-10-06 09:17:33 %ref-count: 3 Regards, Andrei Robachevsky DB Group Manager RIPE NCC

1 0