- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE 70 DB-WG agenda V1
by Piotr Strzyzewski 21 Apr '15

21 Apr '15

Dear DB-WG Members This is the 1st draft of an agenda for the DB-WG Meeting at RIPE70 at the Hotel Okura in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The DB-WG Meeting is scheduled as usual for Thursday, May 14th, starting at 16:00 local time, after the coffee break. The length of our timeslot is 90 minutes. For the overall RIPE 70 meeting plan please refer to its most up-to-date version at https://ripe70.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ Please feel free to comment agenda items or propose additional topics to be discussed both on the mailing list or direct to the WG Chairs at db-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net Looking forward to see you all in Amsterdam. All the best, Job, Nigel & Piotr ________________________________________________________________________ A. Administrative Matters [~5 min] . Welcome . select scribe (thanks to Nigel for volunteering again!) . finalise agenda . approval of minutes from previous WG meeting(s) . review of action list (Nigel Titley) B. Data Base Operational Update (Tim Bruijnzeels, RIPE NCC) [~10 min] C. New DB-Software functionality (Tim Bruijnzeels, RIPE NCC) [~25 min] (proposed, test, deployment) . referral-by deprecation - where are we now? - what are next steps (timeline) . from "changed:" to "last-modified:" / "created:" - where are we now? - what are next steps (timeline) . RIPE NCC to stop enforcing accurate organisation names in "descr:" attribute . restrict usage of RIPE-NCC-RPSL-MNT . new MNTNER - RIPE-NCC-LEGACY-MNT . other aspects D. Personalised authentication (Tim Bruijnzeels, RIPE NCC) [~10 min] E. New proposals (Piotr Strzyżewski) [~10 min] . UTF-8 in the DB . same INET(6)NUM objects with different status . cleanup some hacks with status values . make phone number optional in person objects F. Using RPKI for signing RPSL objects (Robert Kisteleki, RIPE NCC) [~5 min] G. "source: field for non RIPE address space" (Job Snijders) [~10 min] H. continue promotion of the the new Afrinic RR (Job Snijders) [~5 min] Y. Input from other Working Groups and/or Task Forces . Cross-registry Authentication for IRR Data BoF (Job Snijders) [~10 min] Z. AOB __________________________________________ -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski(a)polsl.pl

1 0

Proposal to accept same INET(6)NUM objects with different status
by Piotr Strzyzewski 19 Apr '15

19 Apr '15

Dear DB-WG Members Proposal: I propose to allow two INET(6)NUM objects with the same value of inet(6)num attribute and different status to be put into the DB. Problem description: According to current DB/business rules it is impossible to put into the database two INET(6)NUM objects with the same value of inet(6)num attribute and different status. This situation is quite problematic when an LIR which receive /22 from the last /8 cannot put this exact /22 with "ASSIGNED PA" status into the DB (this will result with en error). The current practice is way from being ideal - one have to divide this /22 to at least two smaller assignments. This problem is more relevant but not limited to the new LIRs which receive their initial and only allocation and assign it as one single block to themselves. Some possible problems to be addressed: 1. Should this be limited to certain top/bottom status pairs (like ALLOCATED PA->ASSIGNED PA). IMHO yes. 2. Shoud DB return both INET(6)NUM object matching the query? I'm open to both options (special query flag could be introduced if necessary). 3. How to delete/modify correct INET(6)NUM object. While deleting, exact copy must match. While modifying, status line select the one to be modified. Looking for your comments. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski(a)polsl.pl

2 1

Proposal: make phone number optional in person objects
by Shane Kerr 17 Apr '15

17 Apr '15

All, Piotr's set of proposed improvements to the RIPE database has inspired me! Proposal: Make the phone number optional in person objects. Motivation: For ages the "phone" attribute has been mandatory in person objects (since 1995 with document RIPE 49 at least). But I don't see any reason that this should be mandatory. Many people prefer to be contacted via e-mail or some other method. Oddly, "phone" is optional on role objects, which would seem to be the ideal place for help desks and the like. (I am NOT proposing that we change this.) Cheers, -- Shane

3 4

Proposal to cleanup some hack's with status values
by Piotr Strzyzewski 16 Apr '15

16 Apr '15

Dear DB-WG Members Proposal: I propose to introduce some new status lines for INET(6)NUM objects to cleanup some hacks. Problem description: Right now we have at least four category of hacks in the status lines: 1. ::/0 inet6num: ::/0 netname: IANA-BLK (...) status: ALLOCATED-BY-RIR remarks: This network in not allocated. This object is here for Database consistency and to allow hierarchical authorisation checks. (...) 2. 0/0 inetnum: 0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255 (...) status: ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED (...) 3. IPv6 allocations made by IANA to RIPE NCC inet6num: 2001:600::/23 (this is just an example) (...) status: ALLOCATED-BY-RIR # This block was actually allocated by the IANA (...) 4. IPv4 allocations made by IANA to RIPE NCC inetnum: 185.0.0.0 - 185.255.255.255 (this is just an example) (...) status: ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED (...) Hacks no 1 and 3 looks easy. Those are definately not ALLOCATED-BY-RIR. So I propose to introduce two new status values: IPV6 for ::/0 and ALLOCATED-BY-IANA for IANA IPv6 allocations. Hacks no 2 and 4 are bit tricky. According to "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region": "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED: This address space has been allocated to an LIR or RIR. Assignments may be PA or PI. This status is intended to document past allocations (...)" It is quite obvious that 0/0 is not "past allocation". So I propose to introduce new status value: IPV4 for 0/0. Moreover, it looks like "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED" has been overused also. For example 185/8 has been allocated to RIPE NCC on 2011-02-08. This was done after many of the previous versions of the "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" which include quoted definition have been published. So I propose to introduce new status value ALLOCATED IANA for such cases. Some possible issues to be addressed: 1. When this proposal will be supported by the DB-WG, then it has to be discussed with AP-WG and IPv6-WG. 2. There are two more hacks which could be discussed: IETF reserved blocks and legacy allocations under various RIR administration. Looking for your comments. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski(a)polsl.pl

1 0

Re: [db-wg] [ncc-announce] [news] Phase 1 of Deprecation of "changed:" Attribute Deployed to RIPE Database Release Candidate Environment
by * IP - Detal 10 Apr '15

10 Apr '15

Dear Colleagues from RIPE NCC, Thank you for information. <http://www.google.pl/url?source=transpromo&rs=rssf&q=//translate.google.com…> In relation to the following e-mail we have a question. We are one of the largest ISP in Poland (we have a huge number of object registered in ripe database). We do not understand how we would add so many attributes "last-modified:" and "created:" to tens of thousands our records registered in ripe database? It takes a long time and we are obliged to modify it to the end of July 2015. The "created" and "last-modified" fields can be automatically generated to new records, but how to updated the already registered objects without manual input ? We are waiting to your reply. Kind regards, Ewa Hilmantel - Debska pl.tpsa ________________________________ From: ncc-announce [mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tim Bruijnzeels Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 5:15 PM To: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net Subject: [ncc-announce] [news] Phase 1 of Deprecation of "changed:" Attribute Deployed to RIPE Database Release Candidate Environment Dear colleagues, The RIPE Database Working Group has asked the RIPE NCC to replace the "changed:" attribute in the RIPE Database with "created:" and "last-modified:". We want to inform the wider community, in case you have any feedback you would like to share with the Database WG. Following discussions at RIPE 69, we met with the WG chairs and finalised an implementation plan consisting of three phases: 1) Introduce the new attributes "created:" and "last-modified:" 2) Make the "changed:" attribute optional 3) Deprecate the "changed:" attribute Details of this implementation plan can be found here: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/tim/deprecating-the-changed-attribute-in-the-… We recently informed the Database WG that Phase 1 of this implementation had been deployed to the Release Candidate environment. We are planning to deploy this to the production environment on 28 April: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2015-March/004504.html>https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2015-March/004504.html If you have any questions or comments, please raise them on the RIPE Database WG mailing list at <db-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:db-wg@ripe.net>>. Kind regards, Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Software Engineering RIPE NCC

2 1

RIPE-NCC-LEGACY-MNT
by Hank Nussbacher 07 Apr '15

07 Apr '15

Not sure which list is appropriate so please reply only to the list that people point out as the one which should handle the following issue: I have modified a number of objects to be now LEGACY objects. inet-nums and aut-nums. When the object is processed and converted into a LEGACY object, RIPE auto-adds the following line to each object: mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-LEGACY-MNT This is documented here: https://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/release-notes/ripe-database-release-1.77 Policy 2012-07: Legacy holder organisations cannot change their organisation name in their org object if it is referenced by an INETNUM or AUTNUM that is maintained by RIPE-NCC-LEGACY-MNT. I then noticed I needed to delete some import and export lines on my aut-num policy. No can do any more. I now get the error: Authorisation for [aut-num] AS378 failed using "mnt-by:" not authenticated by: RIPE-NCC-LEGACY-MNT, AS378-MNT So this now means *every* change to any legacy IP block or ASN has to go via RIPE. But I have been unable to find how to go about informing RIPE that I need to make an object modification. Any pointers would be helpful. Regards, Hank

2 2

[training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
by Training Services 30 Mar '15

30 Mar '15

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live and take only one hour. You can interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email <training(a)ripe.net>. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services

1 0

Call for agenda items DB-WG meeting during RIPE70, Amsterdam, NL
by Job Snijders 23 Mar '15

23 Mar '15

Dear DB-WG participants, We are reaching out to you for agenda items for the Database Working Group session during the RIPE70 meeting in Amsterdam, Netherlands 11-15 May 2015. Some of the current topics are: - 'source:' differentiation - RIPE-NCC-RPSL-MNT - UTF-8 in the DB - cross-registry authorisation - updates from RIPE NCC - .... your topic? Please submit your items or topic suggestions to the chairs directly or to the list for public discussion. Soon we'll publish a draft agenda, waste no day if you want microphone time! :-) The Database Working Group session is scheduled Thursday 14 May, from 16:00 till 17:30. Looking forward to a successful session and see you soon in the beautiful city of Amsterdam! Kind regards, Job, Piotr & Nigel

1 0

RIPE NCC to remove mnt-lower RIPE-NCC-END-MNT from ASSIGNED PI objects
by Tim Bruijnzeels 06 Mar '15

06 Mar '15

Dear colleagues, Sub-assignments of ASSIGNED PI objects are technically possibly in the RIPE Database, but not allowed by RIPE policy. And to prevent that such sub-assignments are created, the RIPE NCC has been including "mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-END-MNT" on ASSIGNED PI Objects. Nowadays however we prefer to enforce such policy restrictions by the use of special "business rules" and a rule has already been implemented for this particular case. Therefore the RIPE NCC would like to do a bulk change on all ASSIGNED PI objects in the RIPE Database and remove "mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-END-MNT" where it's present. Since we feel that this operation does not significantly alter the affected objects we plan to suppress sending out notify messages regarding this change, and we will make sure that this change is excluded when the "last-modified:" attribute is added in future. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Kind regards, Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Software Engineering RIPE NCC

4 5

Monthly open-items summary
by Nigel Titley 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

Folks, The WG chairs have decided that a monthly "open-items" list might be useful to the WG. I'm doing the first and it will then rotate around the other chairs on a monthly basis. - "source: field for non RIPE address space", this proposal needs to be reworked to accommodate the large transfer of route objects from RIPE to the new AFRINIC DB - "restrict usage of RIPE-NCC-RPSL-MNT" we need to continue this discussion and request action from RIPE NCC - proposal for latin1 primary keys, utf8 allowed in user modifiable data - cross routing registry authorisation. This is a long term project which will ultimately allow authorisation between registries and will allow de-duplication of data across the registry system as a whole. This will be progressed as a BOF at RIPE 70 meeting if possible. - continue promotion of the the new Afrinic RR If I've missed anything please let me know. Nigel

1 0