- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

More specific INET6NUM for IPv6 PI
by Tobias Fiebig 04 Apr '23

04 Apr '23

Heho, for some unrelated reasons I have been thinking about more specific INET6NUM objects for IPv6 PI assignments that still list the same organization but detail a specific purpose of the more specific to aid, e.g., debugging and information sharing. As this is a relatively quick thought that crept up to my brain (I don't want to request or suggest anything; More interested in understanding the current situation), i'd really appreciate some input, mainly to understand where i might have missed some context. With best regards, Tobias # Description The following might, for example, be the use of a /48 PI assignment: 2001:db8:1234::/48 2001:db8:1234::/52 - Public Internet Infrastructure 2001:db8:1234::/56 - Network; Loopbacks, transfer etc. 2001:db8:1234:100::/56 - Infrastructure PoP1 (mail, web, DNS) 2001:db8:1234:200::/56 - Infrastructure PoP2 (backup, DNS) 2001:db8:1234:f000::/52 - Office France 2001:db8:1234:f000::/56 - Office (infra) France 2001:db8:1234:f100::/56 - Office (wired) France 2001:db8:1234:f200::/56 - Office (wifi) France 2001:db8:1234:f300::/56 - Office (guest wifi) France 2001:db8:1234:d000::/52 - Office Germany 2001:db8:1234:d000::/56 - Office (infra) Germany 2001:db8:1234:d100::/56 - Office (wired) Germany 2001:db8:1234:d200::/56 - Office (wifi) Germany 2001:db8:1234:d300::/56 - Office (guest wifi) Germany Dedicated INET6NUM objects could be useful for: - The per-office-country /52 to properly attribute geoloc and direct to the right (local) role contacts (noc.fr(a)example.com vs. noc.de@) - Indicate that the internal office wifis have a /64 on each client - Indicating the status of the guest wifis and a different abuse department, as they--containing externals--might have to be handled differently, and there is no prefix delegation (PI requirements) - Creating objects for pop1/pop2 infra networks (noc.infra@, detailing use for public-facing/DMZish systems) - Creating objects providing additional information on more specifics that may show up in traceroutes - ... In all cases, the ORG of the objects would remain the same as that of the assigned /48. This is currently not possible in the DB as: - There is no fitting status:, and ASSIGNED PI can not use by LIR/end- user MNTs - The creation of more specific INET6NUM objects is not allowed in general Arguments against allowing more specifics below PI are: # The org should just request one PI per pop/use (infra/de/fr) Here, I would argue, that this does not necessarily conform to address space conversation; Technically, the /48 is enough for this specific org. Also, while RIPE 738 2.6 notes that assignments should only be made for _specific_ purposes, it explicitly lists some of the use-cases and splits described above. Furthermore, when requesting PI, the ability to use more specifics from a /48 is a common argument why only a /48 can be provided to one end-user with multiple pops. Similarly, requesting multiple /48s increases the numbering overhead for the end-user, and even if one larger-than /48 assignment was made (which is a discussion out-of-scope and for another wg here), the issue of creating more specifics for the /48s would remain the same. # Policy forbids it I am actually not sure whether ripe-738 actually forbids this. Reading Sec. 2.6, I only see a restriction to specific purposes (see above) and a restriction of more specifics being 'sub-assigned to other parties', which is reiterated in the preamble of Sec. 7. In my reading, though, that does not mean that an assignee could not create more specific INET6NUM to more accurately document the extend of the specific use of the assignment, as long as the ORG remains the same. -- Tobias Fiebig M tobias(a)fiebig.nl

4 3

ORGANISATION country code
by denis walker 23 Mar '23

23 Mar '23

Colleagues We have a number of outstanding issues from RIPE 85 so let's start with NWI-10. Ed said in his update, "Country code is now editable in organisations without co-maintained resources" I think this is a really bad idea. The country codes entered into ORGANISATION objects by the RIPE NCC are well defined, verified and maintained by the RIPE NCC. If we allow users to edit this field in other ORGANISATION objects, the values they enter will be undefined, unverified and meaningless. Just like the country code in resource objects. I don't think we should allow more meaningless data to be added to the RIPE Database. Even worse, we are mixing well defined data with meaningless data in the same attribute in the same object. This will end up with some people trusting all of this data and some people not trusting any of it...confusion. I suggest we don't allow users to enter any data into this attribute and remove any data that may have already been entered. If there is a need for resource holders to enter a country code in ORGANISATION objects set up for end users, then let's define a specific attribute for that with a well defined meaning. Your thoughts are welcome... cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

11 36

RIPE Database Quarterly Planning Q2 2023
by Edward Shryane 21 Mar '23

21 Mar '23

Dear colleagues, We have published our quarterly plans for Q2 2023 for the RIPE Database: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/quarterly-planning In this quarter, we will work on the NWI-12 NRTMv4 implementation, publishing the source code to our web application and opening the Full Text Search API to end users among other items. We hope that by providing these plans, we can better inform the community of the ongoing developments on the RIPE Database and get feedback on our work. The goal of our quarterly planning is to communicate the work we’re doing for the coming months, get your input and start a discussion on other developments we should work on. If you have comments or questions around this, we hope you'll let us know on the list or you can always contact the DB team directly at ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net . Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 0

Discussion and Decision making in the DB-WG
by denis walker 08 Mar '23

08 Mar '23

Colleagues I would like to clarify a couple of points here in case anyone has doubts. I often get heavily involved in some discussions on the mailing list. I sometimes have strong views and probably come across as quite pushy. But I always present arguments to support my viewpoint. I am not one of those who make a bold headline and then disappear behind a rock, expecting you to just accept my comment. Of course I am not always right. I am happy to hear from anyone who (partially) disagrees with me or others as long as you offer some arguments to support your viewpoint. I also like to hear from people who (partially) agree with me or others. We don't get a lot of people joining discussions on this mailing list. That's one of the reasons I reply to many comments to try to keep the discussion alive. Sometimes someone makes a comment, no one responds and the conversation dies. But on the other hand, by replying to many of the comments, some people may see me as talking over you. It is a fine line to get it right. The bottom line is, if more people were involved in discussions, expressing a range of supported views, I could say less or even shut up. To make decisions it is always better to have multiple views. When it comes to decisions, if I have been heavily involved in a discussion I always step back from the final decision. In those cases William will make the decision. So just because I am a co-chair and push a particular view does not mean it is a done deal. It really would help if more people expressed opinions on these issues we try to develop... cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

1 0

Set default maintainer on locked inetnum resources
by Edward Shryane 06 Mar '23

06 Mar '23

Dear colleagues, From time to time, the RIPE NCC gets requests from LIRs to unlock their PA assignments that have RIPE-NCC-LOCKED-MNT as mnt-by. These inetnums are locked due to the deprecation of the NONE authentication scheme in 2004: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/deprecation-of-the-non… A total of 438 ASSIGNED PA AND 13 LEGACY inetnums have both this maintainer, and a responsible LIR organisation referenced in a less-specific inetnum. The DB team wishes to update these inetnums with the responsible LIR's default maintainer, so they can be maintained by the LIR without needing to contact the RIPE NCC. We will inform the affected maintainers. Please let me know your comments. If there are no objections, I'd like to implement this in the coming weeks. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

3 6

recording ROV enforcement
by Tomas Hlavacek 03 Mar '23

03 Mar '23

Dear colleagues, In the last few years we saw numerous experiments that strove to identify networks that enforce ROV. These works came not only from the scientific community but also from the industry, which indicates that many different parties are interested in this question and are willing to work to get the answer. This brings me to the question whether there is any structured and machine-readable way that the networks and IXPs can use to publish the fact that they enforce ROV? It seems that the logical place for this would be IRR and therefore I am off-topic here, but since I am not aware of any previous efforts to extend the RPSL for this particular purpose and I can imagine reasons against it, I was wondering if there is something else, possibly in the non-IRR part of the RIPE DB or somewhere else? Best regards, Tomas

3 3

RIPE-NONAUTH AS-SET bug fix
by denis walker 20 Feb '23

20 Feb '23

Colleagues There is some support for the idea that if AUT-NUM objects in RIPE-NONAUTH authorise the creation of AS-SET objects, these set objects will also be in RIPE-NONAUTH. There is also support for this to be considered as a bug from the implementation of 'NWI-5 Out of region ROUTE(6)/AUT-NUM objects'. So existing AS-SET objects whose creation was authorised by one of these RIPE-NONAUTH ASNs can be moved to RIPE-NONAUTH as part of a bug fix. Does anyone have any objections to such a 'bug fix'? cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 at 19:34, Nick Hilliard <nick(a)foobar.org> wrote: > > Cynthia Revström wrote on 30/11/2022 22:59: > > I am not sure if this feature is used or not however I think this is a > > very good reason to not go forward with a clean-up (at least until we > > have properly evaluated things). > > We will probably have to figure out some other way to deal with > > objects that are currently causing issues I think. > > the "feature" is used, yes. Some providers have customers in different > RIR service regions. Some organisations have address space registered > in different RIR service regions. It's impossible to avoid in many > situations. > > What's important right now is to close off the option to create new > unqualified as-set names, and to move the existing qualified non-RIPE > ASxxxx:as-set objects from source: RIPE to source: RIPE-NONAUTH. > > Denis was correct that this was a bug during the implementation of NWI-5 > (not ripe-731 which I mistakenly quoted). > > After that, we can afford to spend a bit of time looking at potential > clean-up options. There are 1590 empty as-set objects. 700 of these > haven't been updated in the last 5 years, and some going back 20 years. > > I wouldn't lose too much sleep about deleting empty as-sets. Contact > people, set a timeout, and then delete. Worst case, people can > reference new, qualified as-sets. > > Nick >

4 8

Whois Release 1.106
by Edward Shryane 20 Feb '23

20 Feb '23

Dear Colleagues, RIPE Database release 1.106 has been deployed to the Release Candidate environment. We plan to deploy to production on Monday 20th February. This release includes the following main changes: * NWI-19 Implement AS-SET NONAUTH source (#1169) * Implement RDAP "networks" and "autnums" elements in RDAP entity response (#1103) * RDAP Flat model, don't return as-block (#1125) * RDAP Refactor rdap errors (#1124) * RDAP Events and notices (#1112) * NRTMv4 changes (#1166, #1156, #1099) * Improve AS-SET documentation (#1147) The release notes are on the website: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/release-notes/ripe-database-rel… More information on the Release Candidate environment can be found on our website: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/release-notes/rc-release-candid… Please let us know if you find any issues with this release in the RC environment. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 1

Newbie-ish type of questions
by Hank Nussbacher 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

As a LIR we want to extract all records for which we are registered as mnt-by. We tried: https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?searchtext=-i%20mnt-by%20ISOC-MNT but it appears there is some limit at which point all results are blocked for an undetermined time. Also, we don't want to do copy/paste but rather would like that ability to download or API or script the results. Any clue? We also like the app: https://stat.ripe.net/widget/address-space-hierarchy but again here we didn't find a method to download/script/API the results. Any clue? Thanks, Hank

5 4

The RIPE Database needs your attention...
by denis walker 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

Colleagues We still have many outstanding issues, some of which have been on and off the table for years. We cannot make any progress on them as we do not have the attention of enough people in the community. It will be good if we can clear up some of these issues before the next RIPE meeting. For that to happen we need more of you to volunteer to focus a little bit of your attention on database issues over the coming months. The database may not be your highest priority, but it is still an essential tool for many LIR's business and a fundamental part of the whole registry system. If you can PLEASE offer a few moments of your attention over the coming months we can wrap up many of these outstanding issues. Often people who agree with a suggestion, or have no preference, say nothing. We need you to say something so we know you agree or don't disagree. It is not good to declare consensus based on only 3 people commenting. Maybe we can start with the recent conversation about country codes. If you look back over the DB-WG mailing list for January we more or less have a couple of people supporting and one objecting to my suggestions. My suggestions for the community to consider are these: 1/ The country: attribute in ORGANISATION objects is only used to specify the legal address country of organisations (including individuals) holding internet resources and is tied to the country values in the extended delegated stats file. These values are maintained by the RIPE NCC. This is what the community agreed to when they accepted the implementation plan for NWI-10. 2/ The country: attribute in ORGANISATION objects cannot be set by users to meaningless, undefined values for other reasons, as this was not in the agreed implementation plan. 3/ The country: attribute in INET(6)NUM objects is made optional. 4/ We define the optional country: attribute in INET(6)NUM objects to be used for geolocation purposes only 5/ If included, this country code will signal that all the addresses covered by this range/prefix are used within the geographical boundary of the country value. 6/ The geofeed: attribute can be used where a block of addresses are used in multiple countries or if more fine grained details are needed. 7/ An optional country: attribute could be added to the AUT-NUM object if anyone feels it necessary to specify a geolocation for an ASN. As always your thoughts are welcome... cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

1 0