- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Improving Identification of RIPE NCC Members and Independent Resource Holders by Publishing Company Registration Numbers
by Marco Schmidt 18 Nov '25

18 Nov '25

Dear colleagues, Following my presentation at the RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group session, I’d like to propose adding a company registration number to the organisation object type. Problem Statement: The RIPE Database should allow users to uniquely identify Internet Number Resource holders. Today, organisation objects linked to RIPE NCC co-maintained inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num objects include the validated legal organisation name and country code where the resource holder is legally registered. However, these attributes alone are not always sufficient to uniquely identify a legal entity, for three main reasons: 1. Identical names: In some jurisdictions, different companies can legally register with the same or very similar names. 2. Transliteration issues: In countries using non-Latin scripts, converting names from and into Latin characters can produce inconsistent or inaccurate results. 3. Data discrepancies: Differences between the validated legal information (org-name and country) and the contact details maintained by the resource holder (for example, a postal address in another country) can create confusion and make identification more difficult. Solution Definition: Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities. Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company registries. Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope. Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome. Regards Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC

13 26

Re: Improving Identification of RIPE NCC Members and Independent Resource Holders by Publishing Company Registration Numbers
by Andrejs Guba 17 Nov '25

17 Nov '25

Hello, Why should the RIPE Database be required to enable users to uniquely identify specific legal entities? The purpose of the RIPE Database, as defined in long-standing RIPE policies, is operational coordination, facilitating contact between network operators, and supporting incident response — not acting as a corporate registry or providing legally unambiguous identification of companies. 1. The proposal expands the RIPE Database beyond its intended purpose The RIPE Database was never designed to be: a business registry a KYC system a tool for legal verification of corporate identity Adding national registration numbers pushes the database into an area that was explicitly avoided for decades and introduces duties and expectations that RIPE NCC should not carry. 2. Security and operational risks for resource holders A verified company registration number is a powerful OSINT key that enables: precise mapping between IP resources and corporate structures targeted attacks against specific businesses easier identification of operators in sensitive jurisdictions expanded attack surface for ransomware, DDoS extortion, and other threats Many operators understandably prefer not to expose more legal identifiers than strictly necessary. 3. The proposed benefit is marginal compared to the risks The argument about identical organisation names, transliteration issues, or address discrepancies describes edge cases, while the risks of publishing registration numbers are systemic and permanent. Existing attributes already allow for operational identification: org-name country address abuse-c / role-c LIR identifier verified contact details If further clarification is needed, users can directly contact the LIR or the RIPE NCC. 4. Risk of harming organisations in politically sensitive environments In some countries, linking IP resources to a precise legal entity through a government-issued ID number can expose businesses to: political pressure regulatory targeting unlawful interference censorship attempts The RIPE Database should remain a tool for technical coordination, not a legally authoritative directory of corporate identities. I therefore believe this proposal requires much deeper consideration of its broader implications, and in its current form I do not support the introduction of a mandatory reg-nr: attribute. Andrejs Guba Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Following my presentation at the RIPE 91 Address Policy Working Group > session, I’d like to propose adding a company registration number to > the > organisation object type. > > Problem Statement: > The RIPE Database should allow users to uniquely identify Internet > Number Resource holders. Today, organisation objects linked to RIPE NCC > co-maintained inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num objects include the > validated legal organisation name and country code where the resource > holder is legally registered. However, these attributes alone are not > always sufficient to uniquely identify a legal entity, for three main > reasons: > > 1. Identical names: In some jurisdictions, different companies can > legally register with the same or very similar names. > 2. Transliteration issues: In countries using non-Latin scripts, > converting names from and into Latin characters can produce > inconsistent > or inaccurate results. > 3. Data discrepancies: Differences between the validated legal > information (org-name and country) and the contact details maintained > by > the resource holder (for example, a postal address in another country) > can create confusion and make identification more difficult. > > > Solution Definition: > Introduce a new reg-nr: attribute for RIPE NCC co-maintained > organisation objects, containing verified company registration numbers > issued by national authorities. The RIPE NCC already holds this > information for ~99% of resource holders that are legal entities. > > Publishing a unique and verifiable registration number will > significantly improve the ability of RIPE Database users to accurately > identify resource holders and cross-check them in national company > registries. > > Only publicly available registration numbers of legal entities will be > published. Natural persons remain explicitly out of scope. > > > Please let me know your feedback. Questions and comments are welcome. > > Regards > Marco Schmidt > Manager Registration Services > RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: Recent changes to the Database Terms and Conditions
by Maria Stafyla 17 Nov '25

17 Nov '25

Hi Denis, Thanks for your message and apologies for the delayed response. The recent updates to the Terms and Conditions were introduced to facilitate the implementation of the new Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) by those members that fall within the scope of this Act. Such members include insurance companies, financial institutions, etc. By introducing the points you mentioned, we aim to facilitate, as much as possible, our members’ ability to meet their obligations. By setting out these general provisions in the clauses, we wanted to make clear, among others what possibilities exist, for example, in terms of the audits, security checks, and incident reporting, and to clearly state in writing the options our members have in these areas in relation to the use of the RIPE Database. Regarding your questions about clauses 5.6, 5.7, who “the Registrant” and “the Maintainer” refer to, whether they can report any identified incidents or incidents relating to their resources, what types of incidents are meant and whether Users can also report incidents, please see below: For the phrasing, much of the text follows standard legal language (when we use “the” before “Registrant” or “Maintainer” this means they must be read as the terms defined in Article 1 of the T&Cs). As the amendments were part of our efforts to facilitate members that fall under the scope of DORA, we only indicated the incident reporting ability with regards to Registrants and Maintainers. They may report any incident they identify when using the RIPE Database. This does not restrict any user to also report outages or incidents to our Technical Emergency Hotline and security issues to our security team, following our RIPE NCC Technical Emergency Hotline <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/support/contact/technical-emergency-hotline/> process. In relation to your questions about 5.9 and audit reports, the scope of a security check or audit depends on the matter at hand and might differ on a case-to-case basis. An available report of such a check or audit may be provided to a Registrant or Maintainer subject to a non-disclosure agreement. Please refer above on how to read the terms “Registrant” or “Maintainer”. Although the RIPE Database is publicly accessible, certain information within it is not. Therefore, information about protection, integrity and confidentiality of the data remains relevant for the Database in this context. Regarding your point about 2023-04 ‘Add AGGREGATED -BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments’ to our understanding, this proposal did not make IPv4 assignments optional but introduced the option to group assignments in a single registration when the assignments share the same purpose and contact details. Even for such grouped assignments, authorised parties will still be able to find the contact details of their responsible party and contact them. Lastly, thank you for pointing out the missing text in article 2.6, we’ve corrected the error on the website. We have also separated the two definitions of RPSL and Internet Number Registry that Piotr noticed. Kind regards, Maria Stafyla Legal Counsel Specialist RIPE NCC > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:04:00PM +0100, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > > Dear Denis, All, > > "2.6. A Maintainer may only Update the RIPE Database with these types of > data:" > This line ends with a ':'. That suggests there should be a list following > it. There is no list. If you change ':' to '.' then the sentence makes no > sense. > > > The list comes right after that sentence. From what I can see, it's just > missing bullet points. I'll pass this information on to the relevant > team. > > Now let's look at "Article 1 - Definitions" > "Internet number resources - globally unique address space (IPv4 and IPv6) > and Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) issued by any Internet Number > Registry." > Note it says 'any' Internet Number Registry. An LIR is a Local 'Internet > (Number) Registry'. So 'Internet number resources' covers address space > issued by an LIR. These are assignments. > > > For some unknown reason, the definition of Internet Number Registry > (INR) has been linked to and placed at the end of the RPSL definition. > That definition uses the word "allocates". I'll pass this information on > to the relevant team. > > > Let me report back to you that, thanks to Marita's prompt help, these > two formatting issues have already been fixed. I hope that helps. > > Best, > Piotr > > -- > Piotr Strzyżewski > > >

1 0

New draft NWI process
by David Tatlisu 14 Nov '25

14 Nov '25

Hello Everybody, You are welcome to look over a draft of a new definition of the Numbered Work Item process. This new version keeps the existing process largely the same with some procedural tweaks here and there and also improves the readability of the text. Let us know what you think about this proposed change, good or bad. We'd like to make it official in about three weeks. NEW DRAFT Text: ––––– RIPE Database Working Group Numbered Work Items In order to facilitate discussion about issues and solutions, as well as report on the progress made with solution implementation, the RIPE Database Working Group employs a process using Numbered Work Items (NWIs). Please note that this does not replace the Policy Development Process. Instead it is used for smaller work items and helps to facilitate the communication between the DB WG and the RIPE NCC. Kickstart: Anyone can contact the RIPE DB WG co-chairs and present a proposal or a problem statement. Alternatively this can also be sent to the WG mailing list directly. If there is interest in this work item, the Database WG co-chairs will ask the RIPE NCC to assign a number to this work item and include it on the list of numbered work items (NWIs). Problem definition: After an NWI is created, the proposal or problem statement will be discussed in the WG. This can mean further specifying the problem statement and including example cases of the problem to clarify the scope. After two to three weeks the WG co-chairs will determine of there is a consensus and will either post a clearly defined problem statement to the list, or if there is no agreement on a problem statement, the NWI will be closed. Solution definition: Anyone, including RIPE NCC staff, can propose solutions to a work item's problem statement. The RIPE NCC will also provide an implementation analysis that can include feasibility, expected workload, proposed solutions, impact on other work items etc. In this phase, the RIPE NCC together with the RIPE DB WG co-chairs will also determine if the NWI might have an impact on an existing policy or if the NWI might in fact lead to a change in policy or a new policy. In this case, the WG co-chairs are advised to use the more formal Policy Development Process (PDP) instead of the NWI process. Implementation: Once the WG agrees on the proposed solution, the RIPE NCC can start implementing it, keeping the WG up to date about the timeframe, milestones, documentation etc. The RIPE NCC will also update the entry of the NWI on the table of NWIs accordingly. Finished: The project ends when the change has been deployed in the production environment. Cancelled: The project can also end when the working group decides to cancel it. The RIPE NCC will update the list of NWIs on a regular basis to reflect the status of each NWI. ––––– EXISTING Text for your convenience ––––– In order to facilitate an ordered discussion about issues and solutions, as well as report on the progress made with solution implementation, the RIPE Database Working Group employs the following process using Numbered Work Items (NWIs): Kickstart: To kickstart the process, any db-wg participant can email the chairs with a snippet of text (a rough problem statement) and formally ask the chairs to make it a work item. The chairs can then say “yes”, and assign it a number, or “no”. If a number is assigned, the work item will be routed through the following three phases: Phase 1: Problem Definition In this phase we will work as a group on formulating an exact problem definition: text goes back and forth in the working group, example cases of the problem are provided. In a timeframe of two to three weeks the chairs declare consensus on the problem statement of the NWI. Phase 1 output: A clearly defined problem statement, or a conclusion if we cannot agree upon a problem statement definition. If the latter is true, the NWI cannot proceed to Phase 2. Phase 2: Solution Definition Solution finding: People can propose solutions to a work item's problem statement. Solutions can come from RIPE NCC staff or from any working group member. The RIPE NCC may offer an implementation analysis on proposed solutions or aspects of solutions. For the NWI to move to Phase 3, the RIPE NCC has to provide the working group with a summary of their understanding of the solution, and the chairs declare consensus on the group's acceptance of this summary. Phase 3: Development and Deployment Phase The RIPE NCC writes the code, sets timelines and milestones and documents the transitions/migration plan if applicable. Finish: The project ends when the change has been deployed in the production environment. Cancelled: The project can also end when the working group decides to cancel it. Every month the RIPE NCC will update this page with an overview of all open NWIs, a brief summary of each, who is taking action and what that action is. ––––– I express my gratitude to all those who worked on this draft, and everybody who took the time to offer their feedback. Kind regards, Peter and David

2 3

Recent changes to the Database Terms and Conditions
by Karolina Bochenek 13 Nov '25

13 Nov '25

Dear all, At its 188th RIPE NCC meeting on 4-5 September 2025, the RIPE NCC Executive Board approved amendments to the RIPE Database Terms and Conditions. These changes are in response to the EU regulation Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) which came into effect in January 2025. While the requirements apply to financial institutions, the RIPE NCC aims to facilitate the implementation of this regulation for those entities that are RIPE NCC members to a reasonable extent. The following changes include: Adding details of how we manage planned maintenance and how incidents can be reported. We also added information about security measures and audits (articles 5.5-5.9) Adding subcontractor, service level and data protection information (articles 8.4-8.6) The updated RIPE Database Terms and Conditions are available at: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/terms You can find more information about DORA and other relevant regulations in the RIPE NCC Trust Portal: https://trust.ripe.net/legal-compliance/ The RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting minutes are available at: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2025/188th-executive-… The amendment will come into effect on 13/11/2025. Kind regards, Karolina Bochenek RIPE NCC

3 3

Whois Release 1.120
by Edward Shryane 13 Nov '25

13 Nov '25

Dear colleagues, RIPE Database release 1.120 has been deployed to the Release Candidate environment for testing. We plan to deploy to production on Thursday 27th November. Whois release 1.120 contains the following changes : * Whois scope is now mandatory for OAuth 2.0 tokens * Added conditional attributes to object template (which depend on business rules) * Add warning in update response if API key is expiring soon * Redirect top-level IANA administrative blocks (i.e. top-level /8 allocations) to other RIRs in RDAP response * Update RDAP geofeed implementation with changes in RFC 9877 The full list of changes is visible in the source repository: https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/compare/1c439eb5...6db089c The release notes are also in the repository : https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/releases/tag/6db089c3 More information on the Release Candidate environment can be found on our website: https://apps.db.ripe.net/docs/Release-Notes/ The data in the Release Candidate environment is a dummified copy of production from 11th November. Please let us know if you find any issues with this release in the RC environment. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 0

Proposal to Allow UTF-8 in “descr:” and “remarks” Attributes
by Edward Shryane 06 Nov '25

06 Nov '25

Dear colleagues, As I presented at RIPE 89 and RIPE 90, I'd like to propose to allow UTF-8 encoded characters in "descr:" and "remarks:" attributes. Is there support for adding UTF-8 in the RIPE database? Please let me know your feedback. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC Problem Definition ------------------ It is currently only possible to store Latin-1 encoded data in the RIPE database. This is an issue for the majority of the RIPE region whose native language is not supported by Latin-1. We should allow regional operators to add notices to their RIPE database objects in their native language, using UTF-8 encoded data, so long as this does not affect interoperability. Solution Definition ------------------- In order to allow operators across the RIPE region to add notices in their own local language, we will allow UTF-8 characters in the “descr:” and “remarks:” attributes only. This change reduces the risk of impact to operators, users and the RIPE NCC, and does not affect existing RIPE policy. We can extend support for UTF-8 in additional existing or new attributes in the future, once we have more operational experience with it, but for now, only “descr:” and “remarks:” will be supported. Background ---------- Some work has already been done towards internationalization of the RIPE database. For example, in April 2015, Piotr Strzyzewski suggested to the DB-WG to support UTF-8 in free-text attributes. "Proposal to allow UTF8 (April 2015)" https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/db-wg@ripe.net/thread/QEYKOWZBCVA6HN… In May 2022, I published a RIPE Labs article on the impact analysis of supporting UTF-8 in the RIPE database. https://labs.ripe.net/author/ed_shryane/impact-analysis-for-utf-8-in-the-ri… At RIPE 89 and RIPE 90 I proposed to support UTF-8 in the RIPE database and asked for feedback. https://ripe89.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/105-RIPE89-DB-WG-U… https://ripe90.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/120-RIPE90-DB-WG-O… Impact Analysis --------------- Backwards Compatibility UTF-8 is backwards compatible with ASCII, in the same way as Latin-1. Any RPSL objects solely using ASCII will be compatible with UTF-8 encoding. Approximately 99% of all objects in the RIPE database only contain ASCII characters. Personal Data Users must not add personal data in “remarks:” or “descr:” attributes, as these attributes are not included in the daily limit accounting, are not validated as they contain free text, and are not filtered by default. This is already the case in the RIPE database and the introduction of UTF-8 encoding does not change this. Personal data with UTF-8 encoding is out of scope. Interoperability If interoperability is a concern (i.e. a notice must be readable by a wider community) then it is recommended that only ASCII values are used. Valid Codepoints Validate UTF-8 input with the IDNA 2008 standard to decide whether a Unicode codepoint is allowed (i.e. only allow protocol valid code points). This standard is used in the implementation of Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs). This allows for consistency (code points will be mapped to a specific set of characters) and improved security (using an inclusion model to only allow certain characters). Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-guidelines-2011-09-02-en Transliteration Transliteration to Latin-1 is only done when necessary to match the default response encoding. Otherwise transliteration is not done (i.e. UTF-8 characters will be returned as-is). Impact on RIPE Database Services -------------------------------- Whois (Port 43) Query * The “descr:” and “remarks:” attributes are returned by default on port 43 query responses. * Port 43 will continue to use Latin-1 by default. If so, any UTF-8 characters outside the ASCII character set will be transliterated to Latin-1 or will be substituted with a “?” character. * The client can specify the “-Z utf-8” flag to change the response encoding to UTF-8, then no transliteration will be done. NRTMv3 (Port 4444) * The encoding used by NRTMv3 will continue to be Latin-1. As for port 43, any non Latin-1 characters will be substituted with a “?” character. NRTMv4 * No impact. RPSL objects will continue to be returned in UTF-8 encoding in snapshot and delta files. Whois REST API * No impact. The Whois REST API already supports UTF-8. RDAP * No impact. The RDAP protocol already supports UTF-8. Web Application * UTF-8 encoding is already supported on the query page. * The create and update page validation will be changed to allow UTF-8 characters in “descr:” and “remarks:” attributes. Mailupdates * No impact. UTF-8 encoding is supported. Syncupdates * No impact. UTF-8 encoding is supported. Daily Database Dump and Split Files * The encoding of the database dump and split files remains Latin-1. The “descr:” and “remarks:” attributes are included unfiltered. Any non-Latin-1 UTF-8 characters will be substituted with a “?” character. * We will provide a separate UTF-8 encoded database dump and split files, which will include “descr:” and “remarks:” attributes without substitutions. New LIR Application * No impact. Registry Team * No comments or conerns as changes are limited to descr and remarks attributes.

15 19

Archiving the "Action List"
by Peter Hessler 21 Oct '25

21 Oct '25

As seen on the website, the Database Working Group has an Action List, instead of an Action Movie. https://www.ripe.net/community/wg/active-wg/db/action-list/ From a basic perusal of them, this seems to be a basic tracking system of TODOs and Proposals. Notice it says "last updated 7 May 2009". I propose we simply archive this list. If anything is still relevant, please bring it up as if it were new. Peter Hessler, On behalf of the DB WG Co-Chairs

4 5

RIPE90 Database Working Group Minutes
by David Tatlisu 15 Oct '25

15 Oct '25

Hi Everyone, The draft minutes from our session at RIPE90 have been published on the RIPE website, available at https://www.ripe.net/community/wg/active-wg/db/minutes/ripe-database-workin… We'd like to thank Hans from the RIPE NCC for preparing the draft. Please review the minutes, and send any necessary corrections to the working group mailing list. David Tatlisu, On behalf of the DB WG Co-Chairs

2 1

RIPE90 proposal to deprecate the RIPE NONAUTH Database
by Edward Shryane 10 Oct '25

10 Oct '25

Dear colleagues, At RIPE90 I presented a proposal to deprecate the RIPE-NONAUTH database: https://ripe90.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/120-RIPE90-DB-WG-O… (slide 20) The objects in the RIPE-NONAUTH database are not authoritative, and were created anonymously with a well-known password as out-of-region data in the RIPE IRR database. We don’t know who created this data or whether it is still valid. There are very few (< 100) updates per year, which suggests the data is not being maintained. The RIPE-NONAUTH database has only reduced in size by about 10% since it was created in 2018. The existing cleanup jobs and maintainers are not deleting much data. Ruediger Volk pointed out that ARIN had only very recently introduced their NONAUTH database, so it was a very short-term temporary source, and that does not predict anything about the longstanding data that has been split out into RIPE-NONAUTH. He suggested that the RIPE NCC analyse whether something that’s supposed to go away is still being used, or else there is a pretty big danger that someone is actually depending on it. I now present some analysis of the RIPE-NONAUTH database for review. Perhaps we should not retire the RIPE-NONAUTH database completely as we don't know how it is being used, but we could take action to further reduce its size. Your feedback is appreciated. Should RIPE-NONAUTH Objects Be Returned By Default? --------------------------------------------------- The RIPE-NONAUTH database is included by default in Whois queries. This means that any matching object in the RIPE-NONAUTH database is automatically returned in the Whois query response. That includes as-set, aut-num, route and route6 object types. For example, when querying for "AS2561", the matching aut-num object in the RIPE-NONAUTH database is returned. Additionally, *related* matching objects in the RIPE-NONAUTH database will also be returned by default. For example, when querying for the IPv4 prefix "200.30.0.0/18", the related route object "200.30.0.0/18AS5511" in the RIPE-NONAUTH database is returned. We found that RIPE-NONAUTH objects are returned only in a small number of cases (about 0.006% of all queries), but there is a risk that clients will inadvertently trust non-authoritative data if the "source:" attribute is not checked. As a workaround, clients can use the "-s RIPE" flag to only query the RIPE database. Should objects in the RIPE-NONAUTH database continue to be returned by default? Near Realtime Mirroring (NRTM) ------------------------------ Approximately 20% of NRTM requests query for updates to the NONAUTH database. Should we continue to support mirroring the NONAUTH database, considering the non-authoritative nature of the data and low rate of updates? Should RIPE-NONAUTH objects with an exact match in another RIR database be deleted? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 31,930 out of 45,754 route(6) objects in the RIPE-NONAUTH database have a matching route(6) object (i.e. matching origin ASN and exactly matching or less-specific prefix) in another RIR’s IRR database. Approximately 13 out of 67 as-set objects in the RIPE-NONAUTH database have an exactly matching as-set in another RIR’s database. Approximately 1,840 out of 2,073 aut-num objects in the RIPE-NONAUTH database have an exactly matching aut-num object in another RIR’s database. Should we delete RIPE-NONAUTH objects which duplicate identically named objects in an authoritative RIR’s database? Should unrouted RIPE-NONAUTH route(6) objects be deleted? --------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 33,912 out of 44,647 RIPE-NONAUTH route(6) objects appear in the global routing table (as of 12th July). Should we remove any NONAUTH route(6) objects which are not announced? Do they serve any useful purpose? Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

8 22