- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Issue creating new AS-SET
by Denis Fondras 10 Jun '21

10 Jun '21

Hi all, I am trying to add a new AS-SET but I get an error : as-set: Syntax error in AS201376:AS-MEMBERS:DIRECT Here is the object I try to create : AS-SET: AS201376:AS-MEMBERS:DIRECT members: AS60983 TECH-C: DF5400-RIPE ADMIN-C: DF5400-RIPE MNT-BY: AUVERNIX-MNT MNT-BY: DF39378-MNT SOURCE: RIPE AS201376:AS-MEMBERS already exists in the database. I cannot see what I do wrong here. Can anybody help ? Also I tried to do some tests on the test DB but I get a 404 error when clicking 'submit'. I don't know if it is me or a bug. Thank you in advance. -- Denis Fondras / Liopen

4 6

NWI-4 - role of status: field in multivalued status context - reprise
by Carsten Schiefner 09 Jun '21

09 Jun '21

Dear all - after a quick chat with Dennis on this, he encouraged me to toss this into the seemingly stalled, but not yet dead debate: Right now, only the "inet[6]num:" attribute is the primary key to, of or for inet[6]num objects. I wonder if it would be possible to make the tuple ("inet[6]num:","status:") the primary key instead: that should solve the challenge to have an assignment that shall have the size of an allocation. In case this has been exhaustedly discussed here already, please excuse my ignorance - I then obviously have failed to spot the respective contribution in the archives. All the best, -C.

6 7

Re: [db-wg] "status:" attribute values in the RIPE database
by Edward Shryane 07 Jun '21

07 Jun '21

Hi Carsten, > On 7 Jun 2021, at 12:57, Carsten Schiefner <carsten(a)schiefner.de> wrote: > > Ed & all - > > makes sense to me, too. > > However: Instead of forcing this on the creator/updater of an object - > how about the NCC to be as liberal as possible (John Postel's law, the > robustness principle) and to accept any case combination, e.g. "aSSigNED > pi", but very conservatively keep the attribute sored in the DB in > uppercase only? > I agree, apologies I wasn't clear, by force the "status:" attribute value to uppercase, I mean that the value should be automatically changed to all-uppercase, and we should still accept the value in any case. Also, we should perform a cleanup on currently inconsistent values (affecting less than 1% of total inetnum and inet6num objects). Regards Ed > ATB, > > -C. >

2 1

Restricting WHOIS searches to type: netname
by Ronald F. Guilmette 29 May '21

29 May '21

One of the helpful options provided by the RIPE WHOIS server is the --types option which provides a list of what specific object types a given set of query results may be restricted to. That list is as follows: inetnum inet6num as-block aut-num as-set route route6 route-set inet-rtr filter-set peering-set rtr-set domain poetic-form poem mntner irt key-cert organisation role person Can anyone explain to me why "netname" is not on the above list? I would like to be able to query the data base for "ABC" but restrict the query so that I only get back the records for the dozen or so IP blocks whose registrants have (unwisely?) elected to label their networks as "ABC", while NOT also getting back all 16 or so of the organisation objects whose org-name: field contains the substring "ABC", much less the numerous and additional person and role records whose person: and role: fields also and likewise contain the substring "ABC". If I can selectively query just for poems, is there some reason why netnames deserve less respect? And as long as we are on the subject, may I safely infer from the presence, in the data base, of a dozen different networks named "ABC" that no attempt has ever been made to insure uniqueness of netnames within the data base? Are netnames even restricted, as they seem to be, to having a form which is rather strikingly reminicent of actual unique data base handles, i.e. consisting of only alphanumerics and hyphens? Regards, rfg P.S. I do not mean to pick on RIPE specifically here. A quick check reveals that whois.apnic.net and whois.afrinic.net also fail to support selective querying for just netnames... although in those two cases selective quering for poems is also not an option... a sad fact that has left me rather entirely bereft, as I'm sure you can all imagine.

4 4

created: field value
by Ronald F. Guilmette 29 May '21

29 May '21

My apologies to all. I don't intend to be a complainer. I'm just trying to understand fully what's going on in the data base. I must say however that I am getting the impression that the value in the created: field for some (many?) inetnum objects may not be entirely reliable, or even entirely consistant with other available historical data. Example: inetnum: 138.201.0.0 - 138.201.255.255 netname: HETZNER-RZ-BLK-ERX4 descr: Server Block country: DE org: ORG-HOA1-RIPE admin-c: HOAC1-RIPE tech-c: HOAC1-RIPE status: LEGACY mnt-by: HOS-GUN mnt-lower: HOS-GUN mnt-routes: HOS-GUN mnt-domains: HOS-GUN created: 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z last-modified: 2019-12-04T13:10:40Z source: RIPE Given that 1970-01-01T00:00:00Z is rather well known to be the beginning of UNIX time (i.e. time: 0) I could not help but be a bit suspicious of the value in the created: field of the record shown above. A quick look at version #1 of the data base object for the 138.201.0.0/16 block suggests that a rather more appropriate value might have been something more like 2003-12-11T17:11:00Z ======================================================================== % Version 1 of object "138.201.0.0 - 138.201.255.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2003-12-11 17:11 inetnum: 138.201.0.0 - 138.201.255.255 remarks: remarks: This inetnum has been transfered as part of the ERX. remarks: It was present in both the ARIN and RIPE databases, so remarks: the information from both databases has been merged. remarks: If you are the mntner of this object, please update it remarks: to reflect the correct information. remarks: remarks: Please see the information for this process: remarks: http://www.ripe.net/db/erx/erx-ip/network-138.html remarks: remarks: **** INFORMATION FROM ARIN OBJECT **** remarks: netname: NETCS-CUST4 descr: netCS Informationstechnik GmbH descr: Feuerbachstrasse 47/49 descr: D-1000 Berlin 41 remarks: country: DE remarks: changed: hostmaster(a)arin.net 19900523 remarks: changed: hostmaster(a)arin.net 20010220 remarks: **** INFORMATION FROM RIPE OBJECT **** netname: KIEZ-NET1 descr: Kiez-Net WAN country: DE rev-srv: DNS-A.Kiez.Net rev-srv: DNS-B.Kiez.Net status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: KIEZ-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered Am I the only one who thinks so? It is certainly my hope that the value in the created: field should accurately reflect the date & time when any given object was in fact created within the RIPE WHOIS data base. Is there any compelling reason why this should ever not be the case? Regards, rfg

4 5

BOGON => 103.86.68.0/22
by Ronald F. Guilmette 28 May '21

28 May '21

My apologies to all. My interests and attention are getting pulled in so many different directions these days that I tend to forget the answers to questions that I seem to vaguely remember having already asked. So, at the risk of repeating myself, what's the current policy on stale route objects in the data base that refer to current bogon address space? I'm specifically interested in 103.86.68.0/22 at the moment. route: 103.86.68.0/22 origin: AS131477 mnt-by: HUAJUAN-MJJ-MNT created: 2018-02-24T19:00:10Z last-modified: 2018-09-04T19:09:05Z source: RIPE-NONAUTH

4 7

status: LEGACY -- Stranger and stranger
by Ronald F. Guilmette 28 May '21

28 May '21

Regarding one of the "LEGACY" blocks mentioned in my prior email, on a whim I decided to take a look at the full history of the block. That full history is reproduced below. This history causes me to have even more questions than I have already asked. I'm still totally befuddled by the fact that this block apparently is and always was marked as "status: LEGACY", even though it's original allocation date still seems to be 2015-09-23, which seems relatively recent to me. Just as perplexing is the apparent direct transfer of the block from a department of the UK government to a private for-profit Internet company. Has the UK government been so hard up for cash in recent years that it has taken to selling off any spare /16 blocks that it happens to have lying around? If so, who should I talk to about placing a bid for the next one they decide to unload? ======================================================================== % Version 1 of object "51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2015-09-23 15:10 inetnum: 51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255 netname: UK-DWP descr: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions country: GB status: LEGACY mnt-by: DWP-MNT created: 2015-09-23T13:10:05Z last-modified: 2015-09-23T13:10:05Z source: RIPE ======================================================================== % Version 2 of object "51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2015-09-23 15:15 inetnum: 51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255 netname: UK-DWP descr: UK Government Department for Work and Pensions country: GB org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE status: LEGACY mnt-by: DWP-MNT created: 2015-09-23T13:10:05Z last-modified: 2015-09-23T13:15:16Z source: RIPE ======================================================================== % Version 3 of object "51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2015-11-05 17:51 inetnum: 51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255 netname: UK-ZEN descr: Zen Internet Limited country: GB org: ORG-DWP1-RIPE status: LEGACY mnt-by: ZEN-MNT created: 2015-09-23T13:10:05Z last-modified: 2015-11-05T16:51:50Z source: RIPE ======================================================================== % Version 4 of object "51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2015-11-05 18:43 inetnum: 51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255 netname: UK-ZEN descr: Zen Internet Limited country: GB org: ORG-ZIL1-RIPE status: LEGACY mnt-by: ZEN-MNT created: 2015-09-23T13:10:05Z last-modified: 2015-11-05T17:43:45Z source: RIPE ======================================================================== % Version 5 of object "51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2019-07-04 12:43 inetnum: 51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255 netname: UK-ZEN descr: Zen Internet Limited country: GB org: ORG-ZIL1-RIPE status: LEGACY mnt-by: ZEN-MNT mnt-by: ZEN-NOC-MNT created: 2015-09-23T13:10:05Z last-modified: 2019-07-04T10:43:36Z source: RIPE ======================================================================== % Version 6 (current version) of object "51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2020-02-03 12:55 inetnum: 51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255 netname: UK-ZEN descr: Zen Internet Limited country: GB org: ORG-ZIL1-RIPE status: LEGACY mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-LEGACY-MNT mnt-by: ZEN-MNT mnt-by: ZEN-NOC-MNT created: 2015-09-23T13:10:05Z last-modified: 2020-02-03T11:55:22Z source: RIPE

2 1

Questions about status: LEGACY
by Ronald F. Guilmette 28 May '21

28 May '21

Could someone be so kind as to enlighten me about the intended semantics of "status: LEGACY"? I'm back to trying to do parsing of the data base, en mass, and I've just now noticed that the annotation "status: LEGACY" within a given inetnum record may not mean what I thought it meant. (And by the way, there seem to be several tens of thousands of inetnum records in the data base, at present, which are all marked as "status: LEGACY".) Here are just a couple of randomly chosen samples that are confusing me: inetnum: 51.155.0.0 - 51.155.255.255 netname: UK-ZEN descr: Zen Internet Limited country: GB org: ORG-ZIL1-RIPE admin-c: RT1337-RIPE tech-c: ZIRA1-RIPE status: LEGACY mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-LEGACY-MNT mnt-by: ZEN-MNT mnt-by: ZEN-NOC-MNT created: 2015-09-23T13:10:05Z last-modified: 2020-02-03T11:55:22Z source: RIPE inetnum: 51.155.91.64 - 51.155.91.71 netname: ZEN20210525-NOC-NYCOMM-LIMITED descr: Nycomm Limited descr: leased-line country: GB admin-c: RT1337-RIPE tech-c: ZIRA1-RIPE status: LEGACY mnt-by: ZEN-NOC-MNT created: 2021-05-25T16:49:09Z last-modified: 2021-05-25T16:49:09Z source: RIPE In what sense is the first inetnum record above denoting a "LEGACY" block? The block appears to have been first assigned by RIPE to ORG-ZIL1-RIPE on 2015-09-23. Aren't LEGACY blocks just the ones left-over from the very old days? I have the same questions also for the second inetnum record shown above, which is a sub-assignment / sub-allocation of the first one. Well, here's another one. This also seems rather un-LEGACY, based on the apparent creation date. inetnum: 162.55.0.0 - 162.55.255.255 netname: DE-HETZNER-19920803 country: DE org: ORG-HOA1-RIPE admin-c: HOAC1-RIPE tech-c: HOAC1-RIPE status: LEGACY mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-LEGACY-MNT mnt-by: HOS-GUN mnt-lower: HOS-GUN mnt-domains: HOS-GUN mnt-routes: HOS-GUN created: 2019-11-18T15:01:35Z last-modified: 2019-11-18T15:01:35Z source: RIPE I'm sure that there is a perfectly rational explanation for all of this. I would greatly appreciate it if someone would guide me to it. Whatever is going on here, I obviously didn't get (or didn't read) the memo. Regards, rfg

1 0

DBTF final draft postponed
by denis walker 20 May '21

20 May '21

Colleagues Following the recent Bof the DBTF has postponed publication of it's final draft requirements document. You can see details here https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2021-May/002231.html cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

1 0

What is the RIPE Database in 2021?
by denis walker 19 May '21

19 May '21

Colleagues There was an interesting presentation in the Address Policy session at RIPE 82 this morning by Remco. He raised a number of issues about what exactly is the RIPE Database, what does it do and who does it do it for? The history of the RIPE Database is quite well known (within the industry). It developed as a means to assist resource holders and network operators with 'Internet operational issues'. It also helped the RIPE NCC, as a registry, to allocate Internet resources fairly and uniquely as and when needed. It's development and operation was and is funded by the RIPE NCC membership. But what is the RIPE Database now, in 2021? What will it be in the coming years, decades? Who will use it, who will pay for it, who gets to decide what is in it? The RIPE Database has evolved over the last 20+ years. It is much more now than just a tool for 'Internet operational issues'. It has a more diverse collection of data consumers. But is it still locked in the hands of a very small set of vocal users whose mindset is also locked in the historical context of the database? Too often in discussions about policies and database features we hear the phrases "It's not the purpose of the RIPE Database to do 'abc'" and "It's not the function of the RIPE NCC to do 'xyz'". Are the people saying this RIPE NCC members who are paying for the database? Is that an issue? I don't know. Maybe it is time to stop thinking of the RIPE Database only in terms of 'Internet operational issues'. Whether people have accepted it yet or not, the RIPE Database is a Public Registry of Internet resources. It serves a similar important function in society as a Land Registry, Company Registry, Vehicle Registry, but on a pan national scale. It's usage goes beyond the historical resource holders, engineers and network operators. Along with the function of managing the resources is the importance to the wider public of knowing who is the [owner, user, registrant, operator] (pick your own word) of an Internet resource. To fulfill its role as a Public Registry perhaps it needs more data not less data. But that has to be the right data. The Database Task Force (DBTF) is considering a recommendation to make IPv4 assignments in the RIPE Database optional. That could lead to the complete removal of 94% of the IPv4 resource detail in the database. Rather than considering making IPv4 assignments optional, maybe what we should be considering is making more IPv6 assignment detail mandatory. Do we need to know who sits behind any of those aggregated blocks? Do we need to start filling in this detail before we go too far down the IPv6 road making the backlog difficult to fill in? Who should make decisions in the future about the purpose, use, access, content of the RIPE Database? Should it be tied to (historical) address policy? Or should it be based more on a wider scope as a Public Registry for the benefit of society? Should the RIPE NCC members, who are paying for the database, have any priority in defining it's current and future use? If that becomes an issue should the RIPE Database be funded independently of the RIPE NCC membership? These are questions I had expected the DBTF to consider. Unfortunately I feel the scope of their work has been too narrowly focussed on current database operational functionality and historical purposes rather than current and future usage. The first heading in the draft requirements document is "What is the RIPE Database?". But it only talks about operational issues. The DBTF clearly stated it is only reviewing the database functionality. I'm not sure if you can define the requirements of the functionality without first considering the full scope of the purpose and usage and the context of the database in the industry and society. To be fair to the DBTF, their charter also focuses on database functionality. Maybe there has been a misunderstanding of the full meaning of 'functionality': noun (Oxford English Dictionary) 1.the quality of being suited to serve a purpose well; practicality. "I like the feel and functionality of this bakeware" 2.the range of operations that can be run on a computer or other electronic system. "new software with additional functionality" The draft document seems to focus on the second definition based on a historical view of the first definition. Also considering: The Business Requirement Document (BRD) describes the high-level business needs whereas the Functional Requirement Document (FRD) outlines the functions required to fulfill the business need. BRD answers the question what the business wants to do whereas the FRD gives an answer to how should it be done. The draft document from the DBTF is more like the FRD. It outlines the functions required to fulfill the historical operational needs. We are still missing the BRD for the RIPE Database in 2021+. We don't have a clear understanding of what we want the RIPE Database to do and who for. Thanks Remco for a very timely presentation. (Although you did still keep referring to 'operational issues' which keeps the discussion locked into a historical context.) I look forward to further discussion on this topic... cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

1 0