- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE52 DB-WG Draft Agenda V34
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 20 Apr '06

20 Apr '06

Dear DB-WG folks, Chairpersons, Meeting! Here is the 4th draft of an agenda for the DB-WG next week at RIPE52 in Istanbul. New since V3: reference correct action in item E. to be in line with reality and the minutes. Thanks, Nigel, for pointing this out! For time slot allocation please refer to the most up-to-date meeting plan at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/meeting-plan.html Best regards, Wilfried. ________________________________________________________________________ A. Administrative Matters - scribe - list of participants - agenda - minutes - "remote participation" coordination (if needed) B. DB Update (N.N., RIPE NCC) [~15 min] C. ENUM delegations (input from DNS-WG, RIPE NCC) [~15 min] D. Proposal to retire CRYPT-PW (Peter K., denic.de + WW144) [~10 min] . PDP proposal E. "51.8 RIPE NCC" (return irt: by default) revisited (RIPE NCC) [~15 min] F. Modify checks for creation of route: (input from Routing-WG) [~10 min] . Brief report on SIDR BoF, IETF65 (tbc, N.N.) G. DB issues when recycling AS Numbers (Leo V., RIPE NCC) [~15 min] H. Client software to use the RoutingRegistry (Rüdiger V., T-Com) [~10 min] . What tools are needed/used to feed router configurations from the databases? Status and perspectives of available software Y. Input from other WGs Z. AOB

1 0

RIPE52 DB-WG Draft Agenda V2
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 18 Apr '06

18 Apr '06

[apologies for the broken subject line on my previous message .-(] Dear DB-WG folks, Chairs, Meeting! Here is the 2nd draft of an agenda for the DB-WG next week at RIPE52 in Istanbul. For time slot allocation please refer to the most up-to-date meeting plan at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/meeting-plan.html Best regards, Wilfried. ________________________________________________________________________ A. Administrative Matters - scribe - list of participants - agenda - minutes - "remote participation" coordination (if needed) B. DB Update (N.N., RIPE NCC) [~20 min] C. ENUM delegations (input from DNS-WG, RIPE NCC) [~15 min] D. Proposal to retire CRYPT-PW (Peter K., denic.de + WW144) [~10 min] . PDP proposal E. "48.6 RIPE NCC" (return irt: by default) revisited (RIPE NCC) [~15 min] F. Modify checks for creation of route: (input from Routing-WG) [~10 min] . Brief report on SIDR BoF, IETF65 (tbc, N.N.) G. Client software to use the RoutingRegistry (Rüdiger V., T-Com) [~15 min] . What tools are needed/used to feed router configurations from the databases? Status and perspectives of available software Y. Input from other WGs Z. AOB

1 0

[Fwd: [Fwd: [db-wg] RIPE51 DB-WG Draft Agenda V1]]
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 18 Apr '06

18 Apr '06

Dear DB-WG folks, Chairs, Meeting! Here is the 1st draft of an agenda for the DB-WG next week at RIPE52 in Istanbul. For time slot allocation please refer to the most up-to-date meeting plan at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/meeting-plan.html Best regards, Wilfried. ________________________________________________________________________ A. Administrative Matters - scribe - list of participants - agenda - minutes - "remote participation" coordination (if needed) B. DB Update (N.N., RIPE NCC) [~20 min] C. ENUM delegations (input from DNS-WG, RIPE NCC) [~15 min] D. Proposal to retire CRYPT-PW (Peter K., denic.de + WW144) [~15 min] . PDP proposal E. "48.6 RIPE NCC" (return irt: by default) revisited (RIPE NCC) [~15 min] F. Modify checks for creation of route: (input from Routing-WG) [~10 min] . brief report on SIDR BoF, IETF65 (tbc, N.N.) Y. Input from other WGs Z. AOB

1 0

Whois Updates down
by Trudy Prins 11 Apr '06

11 Apr '06

[apologies for duplicate mails] Dear Colleagues, >From 11:30 this morning our Whois Update service has been unavailable. Currently, we are investigating what caused this problem. We expect Whois Updates to be available again in approximately 1 hour. We apologise for the inconvenience. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this issue, please contact <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net>. Regards, -- Trudy Prins RIPE Database Administration

1 3

AW: [db-wg] Adding route objects
by Ihler, Hermann 06 Apr '06

06 Apr '06

Hi Winfried, if OLD-ISP updates his objects as follows it also will work: route: 192.168.231.0/24 descr: Dummy New via old ISP origin: AS1234 mnt-by: OLD-ISP1-MNT mnt-routes: NEW-ISP-MNT source: RIPE # Filtere In this case there is no need for OLD-ISP to insert mnt-by, mnt-routes is sufficient. We often create objects like this. best regards Hermann Ihler _________________________________________ Deutsche Telekom T-Com Headquarters Network Information Center Ammerlaender Heerstrasse 138 DE 26129 Oldenburg +49 441 234 - 4582 (phone) +49 441 234 - 4589 (fax) E-Mail: Hermann.ihler(a)t-com.net -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Winfried Haug [mailto:wh@germany.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. April 2006 07:40 An: db-wg(a)ripe.net Betreff: [db-wg] Adding route objects Hello, we would like to ask the db-wg working group to change the behavior of adding route objects to the ripe database. I had a discussion with someone from ripe during the routing registry course and he told me that ripe could change the way how route objects can be created but this must be decided by the db-wg. We need route-objects for proper routing via bgp4. As customers may change their upstream they need for a certain amount of time more than one route object. The creating of this new route object failes if the old isp does not respond. Let me give you the following example: inetnum: 192.168.230.0 - 192.168.231.255 netname: DUMMY-NET descr: Customer GmbH country: DE org: ORG-AAAAA-RIPE admin-c: AA1 tech-c: AA1 status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-by: CUSTOMER-MNT mnt-by: NEW-ISP-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-routes: OLD-ISP1-MNT mnt-routes: OLD-ISP2-MNT mnt-routes: NEW-ISP-MNT mnt-domains: OLD-ISP1-MNT mnt-domains: OLD-ISP2-MNT mnt-domains: NEW-ISP-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered route: 192.168.231.0/24 descr: Dummy New via old ISP origin: AS1234 mnt-by: OLD-ISP1-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered we want now add this object parallel to the existing one: route: 192.168.231.0/24 descr: Dummy New via old ISP origin: AS5678 mnt-by: NEW-ISP-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered but fail because: not authenticated by: OLD-ISP1-MNT Thus if OLD-ISP doesnt want for whatever reason help the customer it seems to be that he can block new route objects. This is stupid and can as i know only solved with the help of ripe ncc. It seems to work only if the old isp changed his route object: route: 192.168.231.0/24 descr: Dummy New via old ISP origin: AS1234 mnt-by: OLD-ISP1-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered to route: 192.168.231.0/24 descr: Dummy New via old ISP origin: AS1234 mnt-by: OLD-ISP1-MNT mnt-by: NEW-ISP-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered I think the owner of the network (inetnum object) should be able to create route objects for his IPs. This would solve the problem. Currently he cant do this because the AS does not have his Maintainer i doubt large ISPs want even for a short period customer maintainer in their AS. To avoid abuse, the db should prevent to alter or create route-objects if there is no maintainer in the inetnum object. If the db will accept new route objects created by those who are maintainer in the inetnum object, the customer can do this without help of the old isp or ripe ncc. Could we have some input and comments from the working group ? Winfried Haug --- Headlight Housing Factory | Rechenzentrum: Azenbergstrasse 35 | Neue Bruecke 8 D-70174 Stuttgart | D-70173 Stuttgart Fon: +49 711 2840 0 | e-mail: wh(a)headlight.de Fax: +49 711 2840 999 | http://www.headlight.de

7 6

Adding route objects
by Winfried Haug 06 Apr '06

06 Apr '06

Hello, we would like to ask the db-wg working group to change the behavior of adding route objects to the ripe database. I had a discussion with someone from ripe during the routing registry course and he told me that ripe could change the way how route objects can be created but this must be decided by the db-wg. We need route-objects for proper routing via bgp4. As customers may change their upstream they need for a certain amount of time more than one route object. The creating of this new route object failes if the old isp does not respond. Let me give you the following example: inetnum: 192.168.230.0 - 192.168.231.255 netname: DUMMY-NET descr: Customer GmbH country: DE org: ORG-AAAAA-RIPE admin-c: AA1 tech-c: AA1 status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-by: CUSTOMER-MNT mnt-by: NEW-ISP-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-routes: OLD-ISP1-MNT mnt-routes: OLD-ISP2-MNT mnt-routes: NEW-ISP-MNT mnt-domains: OLD-ISP1-MNT mnt-domains: OLD-ISP2-MNT mnt-domains: NEW-ISP-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered route: 192.168.231.0/24 descr: Dummy New via old ISP origin: AS1234 mnt-by: OLD-ISP1-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered we want now add this object parallel to the existing one: route: 192.168.231.0/24 descr: Dummy New via old ISP origin: AS5678 mnt-by: NEW-ISP-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered but fail because: not authenticated by: OLD-ISP1-MNT Thus if OLD-ISP doesnt want for whatever reason help the customer it seems to be that he can block new route objects. This is stupid and can as i know only solved with the help of ripe ncc. It seems to work only if the old isp changed his route object: route: 192.168.231.0/24 descr: Dummy New via old ISP origin: AS1234 mnt-by: OLD-ISP1-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered to route: 192.168.231.0/24 descr: Dummy New via old ISP origin: AS1234 mnt-by: OLD-ISP1-MNT mnt-by: NEW-ISP-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered I think the owner of the network (inetnum object) should be able to create route objects for his IPs. This would solve the problem. Currently he cant do this because the AS does not have his Maintainer i doubt large ISPs want even for a short period customer maintainer in their AS. To avoid abuse, the db should prevent to alter or create route-objects if there is no maintainer in the inetnum object. If the db will accept new route objects created by those who are maintainer in the inetnum object, the customer can do this without help of the old isp or ripe ncc. Could we have some input and comments from the working group ? Winfried Haug --- Headlight Housing Factory | Rechenzentrum: Azenbergstrasse 35 | Neue Bruecke 8 D-70174 Stuttgart | D-70173 Stuttgart Fon: +49 711 2840 0 | e-mail: wh(a)headlight.de Fax: +49 711 2840 999 | http://www.headlight.de

8 12

AW: [db-wg] Adding route objects
by Ihler, Hermann 31 Mar '06

31 Mar '06

Hi, > But that's winfried's point: the old ISP need to actively enable > creation of the new route object. Yes, you are right, if you have authenticated against the maintainer of the inetnum (mnt-by/mnt-routes) and against the maintainer of the new AS, you should be allowed to create the new route object. But you also have to delete the obsolete old object. And if > The old AS might be bankcrupt, not cooperative, or whatever... you can't, you have to contact RIPE NCC. There is a procedure at RIPE: Ask your customer to send a FAX using the company letterhead paper and signed by one of the responsible contacts of the IP range. The FAX should include the explanation and requesting to remove the route object from the RIPE Database. Submit this FAX to +31 20 535 4341. Ask the customer to include the Ticket Number (if existing) in the FAX. RIPE NCC will remove it then. best regards Hermann Ihler _________________________________________ Deutsche Telekom T-Com Headquarters Network Information Center Ammerlaender Heerstrasse 138 DE 26129 Oldenburg +49 441 234 - 4582 (phone) +49 441 234 - 4589 (fax) E-Mail: Hermann.ihler(a)t-com.net

1 0

Re
by S A 31 Mar '06

31 Mar '06

confirm 352302 --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates.

1 0

Re
by S A 31 Mar '06

31 Mar '06

confirm 352302 --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

1 0

WG action 48.6
by md＠Linux.IT 31 Mar '06

31 Mar '06

http://www.ripe.de/ripe/wg/db/minutes/ripe-51.html says: 48.6 RIPE NCC To change DB behaviour to return IRT object [Misunderstanding of requirement, superceded by AP51.8, complete] Can somebody explain this? I tought that everybody agreed that it would be a good idea to always return IRT records for inetnum/inetnum queries, but this is still not happening. I could not find action 51.8 in the draft minutes of the AP WG. -- ciao, Marco

2 1