- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Software change requests for Ripe V3 code
by George Michaelson 04 Oct '01

04 Oct '01

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 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. 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) 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

1 0

draft agenda (v3 final?), for DB-WG meeting, RIPE 40, Prague
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 03 Oct '01

03 Oct '01

Dear WG list members, attached please find the 3rd (final?) draft: Proposed Agenda for the DB-WG Meeting in Prague, CZ. Item I. was added, a couple of typos were fixed as well... Please note: "the legacy address object migration" is on the draft agenda for the Plenary ("Transfer of Pre/RIR Addess Space") Looking forward to see many of you in Prague, Wilfried. ______________________________________________________________________ Proposed Agenda for the Database Working Group Meeting RIPE-40, Oct. 1-5 2001, Prague, CZ 3. Draft Thursday, October 4th, 2001 09:00-12:30 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A. Administrative stuff (WW, chair) . volunteering a scribe . circulate list of participants . agenda bashing . status of minutes B. Actions Items . status of actions C. DB update (RIPE NCC, Andrei R.) 30 min . operations report . software status . migration summary D. removal of "orphaned" person objects (RIPE NCC, N.N.) 10 min . report and conclusions (if any :-) E. Status of the Merit RADB/IRRd 20 min (Larry J. Blunk, Merit Network, Inc.) F. Report and final discussion: "irt:" object implementation 20 min (Wilfried W., RIPE NCC, N.N.) . review of implementation proposal (summary write-up was sent to DB-WG on Aug 23rd) . review of operational impact (scripts/marketing...) . interworking with "abuse-pointers"? G. What is the Universal Whois Project? 25 min (Mark Kosters, VeriSign Labs) The intended audience would be those who are interested in discussing requirements for domain information lookup but may have direct relevance for information lookups within ip allocations et al. H. Modification of changed: attribute (RIPE NCC, Andrei R.) 15 min . problem statement . proposal . discussion I. "organisation:" Object re-visited 10 min (George Michaelson, APNIC) . background . problem statement . discussion (and proposal?) Y. Input from other WGs . Z. AOB: . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WW, 25-SEP-2001 23:16:18 _________________________________:_____________________________________ 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

LIR-PARTITIONED proposal (originally LIR-ALLOCATED)
by Nurani Nimpuno 01 Oct '01

01 Oct '01

LIR-PARTITIONED PROPOSAL ------------------------ Following James Aldridge's proposal below, here follows an implementation proposal by the RIPE NCC for a new status value in the RIPE Database. Background ----------- This proposal (originally named "LIR-ALLOCATED"was originally discussed at September 1999. James Aldridge later sent out a first proposal to the LIR-WG mailing list, 14 January 2000. (See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/20000101-20000401/msg00007.ht…) The full final proposal (15 January 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 January 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)." Proposed Name ------------- RIPE NCC proposes to use the term: "LIR-PARTITIONED" ("LIR-PARTITIONED PA" and "LIR-PARTITIONED PI") rather than "LIR-ALLOCATED", to clarify the use of this added database feature. As "LIR-ALLOCATED" could be misinterpreted as a policy feature, we believe that "LIR-PARTITIONED" is a more suitable term, not involving policy terminology, but merely describing a partition of the LIR's allocation. 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-PARTIONED PA" is allowed if one level less specific inetnum object contains a "status:" attribute with the value of "ALLOCATED 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". 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. An implementation of this proposal would not affect IP address allocation policy. It would not change the responsibility LIRs have for allocations and assignments held by them. Furthermore, it would not change the manner in which the RIPE NCC verifies allocation utilisation. Timeline -------- Before RIPE 41, January 2002. ---------------- As explained above, this implementation proposal only relates to the proposal outlined in this mail. We welcome the feedback from the LIR-WG and the DB-WG on the "LIR-PARTITIONED" proposal. However, recent comments on the lir-wg mailing list have indicated a wish among some members of the community for a more extensive change, allowing LIRs to sub-allocate IPv4 address space to subsidiaries or downstream ISPs. Such a change would be a rather significant change in current IPv4 address allocation policy, as it has an impact on the LIR's responsibility for its address space as well as the manner in which the RIPE NCC would verify utilisation. If the general feeling in the community is that the "LIR-PARTITIONED" proposal does not cover the LIRs' need, but a more significant change to current IP allocation policy is necessary, then I propose that this be discussed in detail in the LIR-WG. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno *--------------------------------------------------------* | Nurani Nimpuno <nurani(a)ripe.net> | | Internet Address Policy Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | *--------------------------------------------------------*

2 1

Deletion of person objects. Final reminder
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 23 Sep '01

23 Sep '01

Dear all, (apologies for duplicates) Today is the 21st of September. As such, the RIPE NCC will proceed to delete the set of person/role objects detailed in my previous announcements from the RIPE Database. Please see the URL http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/orphaned.html for information on the details of the objects to be deleted. The following is an outline of the process we will be using: 1. Stop updating the database on Friday, 21, at 18:00 CEST. 2. Remove all person objects according to the criteria: - maintained _only_ by DE domain resellers and not referenced - not maintained and not referenced This will take ~15 hours 3. Next day, on Saturday restart the server with the new database. 4. Resume the updates. As you can see, this process will result in period of a few hours during which UPDATE/ADDITION/DELETION messages sent to the RIPE Database will not be processed immediately, but rather stored for later processing. Queries will be serviced by our hot spare machine. Users will not notice any downtime on that part of the service. The length of the outage is directly related to the number of objects to be deleted (more than 2 million) and the need to use special processes to finalise the process in a reasonable time. Further to this deletion, and in order to avoid replication of the current situation after this deletion process, incoming messages containing person and role objects originating from domain name related activities will NOT be processed. The RIPE NCC will contact any source of such messages in order to clear any possible misunderstandings. Hoping to have informed you well, Joao Luis Silva Damas Chief Technical Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

permissions check
by Frank Bohnsack 20 Sep '01

20 Sep '01

dear community, since RIPE is using rfc-2725 it's sometimes not easy to find out if you have enough permissions to modify an object. often you try to update an object but your request has a typo, a missing password or something else. the request fails and many many people will become aware of your misstake. it would be very usefull if we could check our permissions before and a lot of confusions could have been avoided. current example: we need to create a lot of route objects for customer PI space. on the other hand, i see a security hole in this mechanism, because this would be an easy way to find unprotected objects. what is your opinion, could this be an option ? cheers frank -- Frank Bohnsack email fb(a)de.uu.net UUNET, A Worldcom Company phone +49 (0)231 972-1495 EMEA Access & Backbone Networks fax +49 (0)231 972-1188 Team Dortmund web www.de.uu.net

1 0

RIPE Whois Server version 3.0.2
by Shane Kerr 19 Sep '01

19 Sep '01

Dear Colleagues, [Apologies for multiple messages]. The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the release of Version 3.0.2 of the RIPE Whois server. This software is compliant with both RPSL (RFC-2622) and RPS-Security (RFC-2725). This release is intended both as a bug fix release, and also to offer much-improved ease of installation and configuration. Detailed release notes can be found at the following URL: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/software/RELEASE-NOTES-3.0.2 You can download this release by anonymous FTP from the following URL: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/software/ripe-dbase-3.0.2.tar.gz If you do not intend to use the cross-reference files or prefer to build them yourself via "make docs", you can download the source without these files by anonymous FTP from the following URL: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/software/ripe-dbase-3.0.2-nocxref.tar.gz A patch for the 3.0.1 "nocxref" version is also available, if you already have that version, at the following URL: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/software/patch-ripe-dbase-3.0.1-nocxref-3.0.2… If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to contact <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net>. -- Shane Kerr RIPE NCC

3 3

on the question of 'right to maintainership'
by Petra Zeidler 17 Sep '01

17 Sep '01

Dear all, I am herewith soliciting opinions and 'current practise' on the question of maintainership of inetnums. We are in the position of having several allocations that are infested with 'historical' PI assignments, i.e. address assignments that have been assigned before the advent of CIDR. My LIR (de.xlink) currently refuses to enter maintainers different from ours to inetnums from our allocation, due to less than happy experiences with different (even also LIR) maintainers in the past (when the user of the 'historical' PI left its new provider and renumbered they lost all interest in the inetnum and it took quite some time to get the object referring to the then long returned address space deleted). Some people seem to think that they have a right to maintainership to objects that are assigned to them; I cannot find any such rule in the LIR procedures, and also it would be a good question where that would stop .. has anybody assigned a PA /29 a right to maintain their own object? and if yes, how are the hostmasters responsible for an allocation supposed to keep their charge in order? After assignment, anything but the size of the range would be fair game, very fun especially in cases where a tech-c decides that the inetnum range is their personal property even though it has not been assigned to them personally (and that is by no means a rare occurrence). Of course both the crook and the misled are the exception, not the rule, but we -do- have maintainers in the first place because of them, and a rule ought to be based on something better than 'you look kind of trustworthy'. What's your position on the problem as such? And if you give third parties maintainership of inetnums in your allocation(s), under what rules do you do so? To any kind of inetnum? To anyone asking who has a maintainer object? And if you do so, do you still assign from that allocation(s)? kind regards, Petra Zeidler -- [A] KPNQwest Germany * Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 * D-76131 Karlsruhe [T] +49 721 9652 215 [F] +49 721 9652 171 [E] petra.zeidler(a)kpnqwest.com [I] www.kpnqwest.de

2 1

Reminder: Removal of selected sets of contact information from the RIPE Database
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 14 Sep '01

14 Sep '01

Dear all, (apologies for duplicates) This message is a reminder of the ongoing process of removal of unreferenced contact information from the RIPE Database. We have updated the web page http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/orphaned.html with a more up to date list of maintainer objects relevant to this process. I would like to use the opportunity to clarify an apparently confusing aspect of previous notes: If your person/role object already has a mnt-by attribute that references a maintainer object not contained in the list provided in the above mentioned web page, there is no need to add a reference to RIPE-NCC-PN-NONE-MNT. This maintainer has been created by the RIPE NCC with the sole purpose of facilitating a mechanism for people without maintainer objects to tag their person/role objects to avoid deletion. If you already have a proper maintainer object, DO NOT include RIPE-NCC-PN-NONE-MNT as this would lower your protection level. Best regards, Joao Damas RIPE NCC

3 4

Removal of selected sets of contact information from the RIPE Database
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 03 Sep '01

03 Sep '01

Dear all, (apologies for duplicates) This is a reminder notice regarding the process of removal of selected sets of contact information from the RIPE Database as initially announced in my mail of 21-8-2001. This phase of the process will affect all person and role objects that are either: - both un-maintained and unreferenced - unreferenced and maintained by maintainers related to registration of domain names in .de For further details about this process, visit the RIPE NCC's web site at http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/orphaned.html or the "RIPE NCC Annoucements" section at http://www.ripe.net Best regards, Joao Damas Chief Technical Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RPSL WWW Whois Script ...
by Low, Adam 24 Aug '01

24 Aug '01

Hi, Was the new RPSL web whois script used by RIPE released to the general public ? Cheers, Adam

2 1