- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

rpsl to arin format conversion
by terry l. ridder 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

hello; i am doing some research on the rir databases. for my purposes having all data in, what i call 'arin' format, would be the simplest for processing. are there any software utilities available for converting from rpsl to 'arin' format? if no software utilities are available is there a mapping description available from rpsl to 'arin' format? -- terry l. ridder ><>

2 4

RPSLng Deployment
by Tim Streater 23 Feb '04

23 Feb '04

Dear All, I was not at the recent RIPE Mtg and so may be behind the curve. I have been trying to see what is the status of the deployment of RPSLng, and testing the tools. My simple test worked OK, but I can't do more without having more objects to test against. These would need to be inserted by others. There was some traffic on the RPSLng list during the autumn, and near as I can make out there is still some dispute about some details of the syntax; I am not able to contribute meaningfully to that debate. I do note that the contentious items appeared to relate to the aut-num object. It seems to me we need: 1) Agreement 2) Deployment 3) Population 4) and for us, JunOS support The production database contains inet6num: objects. It does not contain or support route6: objects. Is anything in dispute about the route6: object? If not, could the production server be updated to support it, as a step forward. This would allow organisations to enter their route6: objects, and more extensive testing could then be done against these, using -f to keep the aut-num local. This would allow a bit of (2) and (3) in advance of complete (1). It would focus people's minds a bit. At present I have no lever to get customers to do (3) when any route6: objects they enter can only be in the test db. At the moment it feels like everyone is waiting for everyone else :-) Is this justified or am I completely at sea? Cheers, -- Tim

2 1

Organisation object timeline
by Engin Gunduz 18 Feb '04

18 Feb '04

Dear Colleagues, [apologies for duplicate mails] Please find below the timeline for deployment of organisation object in the RIPE Whois Database. You can find the latest organisation object proposal at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/2003/msg00689.html For questions and comments please contact me at <engin(a)ripe.net>. Best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Software Engineering Department ================================ Timeline for Organisation Object ================================ 11 March 2004 Thursday : Pre-release of whois software with organisation object capability. (for tests by external parties, LIRs) 17 April 2004 Saturday : Deployment of whois software with organisation object capability. Creation of organisation objects for existing LIRs, update of existing allocation inetnums and inet6nums. 19 April 2004 Monday : The RIPE NCC starts using the new request forms updated for organisation object.

1 0

RE: [db-wg] rpsl to arin format conversion
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 17 Feb '04

17 Feb '04

>are there any software utilities available for converting from rpsl to >'arin' format? Sorry, I don't have an answer, but rather a question: why don"t you try to do it "the other way 'round", as RPSL is properly described in an RFC? Wilfried. _________________________________:_____________________________________ 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4 3

RE: [db-wg] rpsl to arin format conversion
by Tim Streater 17 Feb '04

17 Feb '04

At 15:50 17/02/2004, Terry Ridder wrote: >On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Wilfried Woeber wrote: > >> >are there any software utilities available for converting from rpsl to >> >'arin' format? >> >> Sorry, I don't have an answer, but rather a question: >> >> why don"t you try to do it "the other way 'round", >> as RPSL is properly described in an RFC? >> >> Wilfried. >> > >arin's db contains the most records. > >logically, it makes sense to convert the other rir dbs to arin format. > >also converting from arin to rpsl would lose information which exists in >arin's db. Examples please, both syntax and semantics. >those helping with the research have a better understanding of arin >format than rpsl. > >-- >terry l. ridder ><> Cheers, ___________________________________________________________________ * * Tim Streater Network Engineer * * * Francis House * 112 Hills Road Tel +44 1223 302992 * Cambridge CB2 1PQ Fax +44 1223 303005 D A N T E United Kingdom WWW http://www.dante.net ____________________________________________________________________

2 1

[off-topic] fwd: SMTP delivery error [was: rpsl to arin format conversion]
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 17 Feb '04

17 Feb '04

Just fyi ...the following is cute, I think. I didn't want to hide it from you all. Look at the "-Rcvd: 550" line ;-) Cheers, Wilfried. ______________________________________________________________________ Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:07:32 +0100 From: SMTP delivery agent <Postmaster(a)cc.univie.ac.at> To: <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at> Subject: SMTP delivery error Note: this message was generated automatically. An error was detected while processing the enclosed message. A list of the affected recipients follows. This list is in a special format that allows software like LISTSERV to automatically take action on incorrect addresses; you can safely ignore the numeric codes. --> Error description: Error-For: terrylr(a)blauedonau.com Error-Code: 3 Error-Text: %MX_SMTP-F-MBX_UNAVAILABLE, action not taken: mailbox unavailable -(Via blauedonau.com) -Transcript: -Rcvd: 220-strauss.blauedonau.com ESMTP Sendmail 8.12.10/8.12.10; Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:07:31 -0600 -Rcvd: 220-blauedonau.com runs a whitelist mail server. -Rcvd: 220 spam and network abuse are not tolerated. -Sent: HELO access.cc.univie.ac.at -Rcvd: 250 strauss.blauedonau.com Hello access.cc.univie.ac.at [192.153.174.2], pleased to meet you -Sent: MAIL FROM:<woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at> -Rcvd: 550 5.7.1 Austria blocked on account of spam and network abuse. Error-End: 1 error detected ------------------------------ Rejected message ------------------------------ [ removed ]

2 1

Proposed change 2004.1: extended route creation rules
by Engin Gunduz 16 Feb '04

16 Feb '04

Dear colleagues, [apologies for duplicate mails] Some time ago, Frank brought an issue regarding route object aggregation to our attention in the DB-WG mailing list. Please see the short thread at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/2003/msg00474.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/2003/msg00475.html We have prepared a proposal to extend the route object creation rules to resolve this issue. However, the resulting proposal turns out to be quite complex as it builds on the current route object creation rules, which are already complex enough. Considering that the need for route object aggregation is encountered very rarely, it might not be worth implementing it. After the deployment of version 3 of our whois software, we have seen only a couple of such cases. In those cases, we have resolved the issue by applying the rules that we specify below manually. I would like to ask the working groups if they think this proposal is too complex. Implementing it would not be a problem technically, but I'm more concerned about explaining the complex rules properly to the users of the whois database. Best regards, and thanks for your time, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Software Engineering Department ============================================================= A PROPOSAL FOR EXTENDED ROUTE OBJECT CREATION RULES This document is about being able to create route objects that aggregate inetnums/route objects. This is needed where a user cannot merge two or more inetnum objects into one larger inetnum object, but still needs to create a route object that aggregates these inetnum objects. This is seen especially with assigned PI inetnum objects. A hypothetical example: Suppose there exist the following two inetnums in the whois database: inetnum: 12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255 netname: EXAMPLE-PI descr: Example Banking PLC admin-c: AA1-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI inetnum: 12.0.1.0 - 12.0.1.255 netname: ANOTHER-EXAMPLE-PI descr: Anotherexample Printing Industries NV admin-c: ZZ1-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI These are assigned to different end-users. Further suppose that they coincidentally take service from the same Internet Service Provider. The Internet Service Provider will want to aggregate these two assignments into a single 12.0.0.0/23 route to be announced, rather than announcing two separate prefixes, in order to keep the number of prefixes in routing tables to the minimum. However, the Internet Provider will not be able to create a single route object in the RIPE Routing Registry which implements RPSSec RFC (RFC2725). This is because the inetnum object that contains the 12.0.0.0/23 prefix will be inetnum: 12.0.0.0 - 12.9.255.255 netname: EU-ZZ-000000 descr: block for PI assignments descr: maintained by RIPE NCC country: EU remarks: These addresses are assigned to network operators. The RIPE NCC does not operate any networks using address space from this block. An explanation of how to find the correct contacts is available at <http://www.ripe.net/nicdb.html> admin-c: CREW-RIPE tech-c: CREW-RIPE tech-c: OPS4-RIPE status: ALLOCATED PI mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT changed: hostmaster(a)ripe.net 20030731 source: RIPE Note the "mnt-lower:" attribute that has RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT. See http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/faq/database/qa4.html#5 for a graphical representation of the current route object creation rules. Proposal: To address this problem, we need to extend the route object creation rules so that it would be possible to create a route object that takes its authorisation from a collection of route and/or inetnum objects that are more specific than the route object to be created. As the situation is quite rare, the 'extended' behaviour can be activated by using the keyword 'EXTENDED-ROUTE-CREATION' in the subject line of the update message or with the syncupdates. The extended behaviour is not the default behaviour. The Algorithm: The proposed algorithm to authorise the route object creation is: Check if the keyword was used. If not, proceed with normal route creation rules as described in RFC2725 (http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/faq/database/qa4.html#5) Check if there is an exact match route object or an exact match inetnum object If there is one, then proceed with normal route creation rules even if the keyword was specified. Find the inetnums/routes that can be used for route creation: Get a list of all inetnums and route objects that are one level more specific than the route object to be created. (-r -Troute,inetnum -m <prefix>) From this list, eliminate the inetnums that have exact match or less specific route objects. (Note: During route object creation, the existing route objects take precedence over existing inetnum objects). Check if the resulting set of inetnums/routes cover the whole space of the route to be created. If not, authorisation fails, hence creation attempt fails. Collect the mntners to be used during the authorisation check. Follow these rules: For each object in the set, check if there are "mnt-routes:" attributes in the object. If there are, they will be used. If there are not, the mntners that are mentioned in "mnt-by:" attributes will be used. Check the authorisation: During the authorisation, the mntners in the same object will be ORed, while the mntners in separate objects will be ANDed. Example 1: Suppose we have these inetnums in the database: inetnum: 0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255 status: ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-routes: RIPE-NCC-NONE-MNT inetnum: 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255 status: ALLOCATED PI mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT inetnum: 12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255 netname: EXAMPLE-PI descr: Example Banking PLC admin-c: AA1-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: MNT-EXAMPLE-PI inetnum: 12.0.1.0 - 12.0.1.255 netname: ANOTHER-EXAMPLE-PI descr: Anotherexample Printing Industries NV admin-c: ZZ1-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-BY mnt-routes: MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-ROUTES mnt-routes: MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-ROUTES-2 There is also this aut-num object: aut-num: AS65534 mnt-by: MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-BY mnt-routes: MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-ROUTES There are no route objects that are in 12.0.0.0/23 space, or less specific of 12.0.0.0/23. The user wants to create the following route object: route: 12.0.0.0/23 origin: AS65534 mnt-by: MNT-ROUTE When the creation is attempted without the keyword 'EXTENDED-ROUTE-CREATION,' the whois software will try to get the IP space authentication from inetnums, as no related route object exists. The one level less specific inetnum is 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255, which has the attribute "mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT". As the user does not have access to the authorisation for RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mntner, the creation attempt will fail. When the creation is attempted with the keyword 'EXTENDED-ROUTE-CREATION': - There are no exact match route or inetnum objects, so proceed with extended route creation rules. - to get the authorisation from IP space, the whois software will perform '-r -Troute,inetnum -m 12.0.0.0/23' query, which will return inetnum: 12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255 inetnum: 12.0.1.0 - 12.0.1.255 - there are no inetnums to be eliminated from the list. - the resulting set of inetnums/routes (it actually has two inetnums and no routes) covers the whole space of 12.0.0.0/23. - collect the mntners to be used in the authorisation process. from the aut-num: MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-ROUTES from the route object itself that will be created: MNT-ROUTE from the IP space: (MNT-EXAMPLE-PI AND (MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-ROUTES OR MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-ROUTES-2)) 12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255 does not have "mnt-routes:", so "mnt-by:" must be used. 12.0.1.0 - 12.0.1.255 has two "mnt-routes:", so they both must be used, but they must be ORed. - the resulting mntner list: ( MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-ROUTES AND MNT-ROUTE AND ( MNT-EXAMPLE-PI AND ( MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-ROUTES OR MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-ROUTES-2 ) ) ) Example 2: Suppose there are these inetnums in the database: inetnum: 0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255 mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-routes: RIPE-NCC-NONE-MNT inetnum: 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255 mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT inetnum: 12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255 mnt-routes: MNT-INETNUM-1 inetnum: 12.0.1.0 - 12.0.1.255 mnt-routes: MNT-INETNUM-2 and the following route objects: route: 12.0.1.0/24 origin: AS65534 mnt-routes: MNT-ROUTE-1 route: 12.0.2.0/23 origin: AS6 mnt-routes: MNT-ROUTE-2 route: 12.0.2.0/23 origin: AS65534 mnt-routes: MNT-ROUTE-3 mnt-routes: MNT-ROUTE-4 and this aut-num: aut-num: AS65534 mnt-by: MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-BY mnt-routes: MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-ROUTES The user wants to create the following route object: route: 12.0.0.0/22 origin: AS65534 mnt-by: MNT-ROUTE When the creation is attempted without the keyword 'EXTENDED-ROUTE-CREATION,' the whois software will try to get the IP space authentication from inetnums, as no related route object exists. The one level less specific inetnum is 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255, which has "mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT" attribute. As the user does not have access to the authorisation for RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mntner, the creation attempt will fail. When the creation is attempted with the keyword 'EXTENDED-ROUTE-CREATION': - There are no exact match route or inetnum objects, so proceed with extended route creation rules. - to get the authorisation from IP space, the whois software will perform '-r -Troute,inetnum -m 12.0.0.0/22' query, which will return inetnum: 12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255 inetnum: 12.0.1.0 - 12.0.1.255 route: 12.0.1.0/24 route: 12.0.2.0/23 (origin AS6) route: 12.0.2.0/23 (origin AS65534) - eliminate the inetnums with less specific or exact match route objects in the list. The resulting list will be: inetnum: 12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255 route: 12.0.1.0/24 route: 12.0.2.0/23 (origin AS6) route: 12.0.2.0/23 (origin AS65534) - the resulting list covers the whole 12.0.0.0/22 space. Continue. - Collect the mntners to be used during the authorisation check. from the aut-num: MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-ROUTES from the route object itself that will be created: MNT-ROUTE from the IP space: (MNT-INETNUM-1 AND MNT-ROUTE-1 AND (MNT-ROUTE-2 AND (MNT-ROUTE-3 OR MNT-ROUTE-4))) - the resulting mntner list: ( MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-ROUTES AND MNT-ROUTE AND ( ( MNT-INETNUM-1 AND MNT-ROUTE-1 AND ( MNT-ROUTE-2 AND ( MNT-ROUTE-3 OR MNT-ROUTE-4 ) ) ) ) )

3 5

Re: abuse-c: proposal
by Niall O'Reilly 10 Feb '04

10 Feb '04

Comments in context below ... On 6 Feb 2004, at 14:31, Randy Bush wrote: >> Attribute name >> Name should be distinctive, eg: 'abuse-mailbox'; not 'e-mail' > > since it should be a handle, which allows me to even get to > a <gasp!> phone number, calling it mail-anything seems a > mis-direction. since all the rest are of the form <foo>-c:, > do we have to invent something new? Yes, we do. A number of ppl (MarcoH, dfk), in different ways, and for divers reasons, have made it clear that we need a new attribute to carry as its value (yes, I do mean RHS) the e-mail address where abuse notifications should be sent. Marco explained this particularly well; The following example is an attempt to illustrate his point. Running whois -h whois.ripe.net 137.43.0.0 | \ perl -ne 'next unless /@/; ($addr) = grep /@/, split; print "$addr\n"' gives a bunch of addresses, which will probably ALL be used by your generic cheap-n-cheerful, save-the-world-from-SPAM robot. [ Hmm.. look at those victims! Must try to spread the load even wider! 8-) ] We aim to make it easy for everyone; the following should be nearly enough. whois -h whois.ripe.net 137.43.0.0 | \ awk '/^abuse-mailbox:/ {print $2}' > >> Handle >> Handle is upwardly scalable >> Handle could refer to person, role, or maintainer > > yep > >> Value >> Value is necessary; if not in primary object, then indirectly >> Value in primary object is attractive at low end of scale >> Value is vulnerable to RHS-hijacking, even if not in primary object! > > do not understand. do you mean the value (right hand side) > of the abuse-c: attribute? or are we sending cash? :-) [ I'll happily receive cash. 8-) ] I mean the RHS of the abuse-mailbox: attribute. This attribute MAY be specified in the primary (inet*num or such) object, but for scalability belongs in the object whose handle is on the RHS of a *-c: or mnt-by: attribute. [ Hmm.. *-c, *-by, *-fly 8-) ] As dfk has pointed out, we can get by without abuse-c: if we focus on taking advantage of _existing_ person/role/mntner objects linked by *-c: or mnt-by: and just use abuse-mailbox:. <p loaded-with="irony" remark="In case it's not obvious"> This is the speedy-deployment option, so I'm sure we won't want to use it! </p> IHTH TGIF /NO8

8 27

(no subject)
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 10 Feb '04

10 Feb '04

>> Creating irt objects is not any harder than creating a new maintainer, >> maybe the documentation should focus more on this and less on marketing >> the TI concept (which apparently only NRENs care about). > >First problem with IRT is that in order for it to have any value every LIR >has to actively modify ALL their inetnum objects......... Now that must mean >that the intention has never been to make sure all LIRs implement it. Sorry, but this just wrong. It is exactly one of the advantages (of course you might want to have a different point of view :-) that modifying 1 (or a very small number of) object(s) would be sufficient - as long as we are talking hierarchical (i.e. LIR) address space. Tagging the _allocation_ object of an LIR would cover _all_ the _assignment_ objects in that block. With the added benefit that you can still have a "more specific" or 1st-line pointer in an assignment object. >Next problem is the idea behind IRT, apparently it is to be used by >companies who outsource handling of abuse - we don't. Out-sourcing would be supported, but it is a secondary issue. The primary issue is that it allows maintaining the data by the group being responsible for a certain function. There are real life situations where the role/group/team keeping track of address assignments is _different_ from the role/group/team being responsible for abuse or incident handling. If I should use this >object it should have a normal mnt-by attribute and the following fields >either removed or made optional: address, signature, encryption, auth. > >I can appriciate the need for the features of the IRT object, but WHY can't >the rest of us get a working solution to our problem? "You" (actually we ;-) can certainly get a solution, as soon as there is rough consensus in the WG that the approach proposed is _probably_ going to work and has a reasonable "price tag" (i.e. the implementation effort). > It doesn't necessarily >mean that we can't preserve the features of the IRT. > > > >Med venlig hilsen/Best regards > >Christian Rasmussen >Hosting manager, jay.net a/s > >Smedeland 32, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark > >Email: noc(a)jay.net >Personal email: chr(a)corp.jay.net >Tlf./Phone: +45 3336 6300, Fax: +45 3336 6301 > >Produkter / Products: >http://hosting.jay.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried.

3 2

RE: [db-wg] Re: abuse-c: proposal
by TAYON, Julien 09 Feb '04

09 Feb '04

MarcoH <mailto:marcoh@marcoh.net> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 03:25:12PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: [...] > > To provide such a behaviour, we need to store the information somewhere in > the database and free-form remarks or a more generic e-mail attribute is > IMHO not the way. I have been caught in a story of alledged spam with an end-user customer and my experience is that ISP abuse team is at the crossroad between - lawyer (commercial and penal one), - wannabe hacker (coders with good programming skills and poor comprehension of the universe ;) - end-user customer that want bad guy punished and their mails delivered (especially the unsollicited one they send), - anti and pro spam lobby wich abhores one another What I understood is abuse / IP problems are mostly resolved if you teach / inform / communicate correctly. As the situation is already quite confusing and complicated I definitively want a Keep It Simple Stupid solution. IMHO abuse-c: field wich is a valid email is Simple & Stutid (aka what I need) : as a proof of concept I can successfully "sell" it today in my company to the marketing department :) Regards, Julien Tayon 9T

1 0