- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Progress on Number Work Items
by Tim Bruijnzeels 02 Aug '16

02 Aug '16

Dear working group, We currently have the following NWIs: NWI-1 Staying on top of abuse contact changes State: Problem Definition 3 messages 3 participants last message: 27 June 16 NWI-2 Displaying history for database objects where available State: Problem Definition 10 messages 5 participants last message: 12 July 16 NWI-3 AFRINIC IRR homing State: Solution Definition 18 messages 8 participants last message: 1 August 16 NWI-4 Role of status: field in multivalued status context State: Problem Definition 4 messages 3 participants last message: 27 June 16 NWI-5 Out of region ROUTE(6) / AUT-NUM objects State: Problem Definition 3 messages 3 participants last message: 28 July 16 NWI-6 Applicable data model not clear from contextless objects State: Problem Definition 3 messages 3 participants last message: 28 June 16 The progress on numbered work items (NWIs) is also available on the web site: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/numbered-work-items

1 0

Conditions for Transferring or Making Available NRTM Data
by Tim Bruijnzeels 01 Aug '16

01 Aug '16

Dear colleagues, Some users of the Near Real Time Mirroring (NRTM) Service may wish to transfer or make data from the service available to third parties. In order to make the process clearer, the RIPE NCC has now published conditions for doing so: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/nrtm-mirroring/conditions-for-t… <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/nrtm-mirroring/conditions-for-t…> If you are interested in using the NRTM Service this way, please follow the link above to read the conditions and find instructions for submitting a request. Kind regards, Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Database Group RIPE NCC

1 0

NWI-5 - Out of region ROUTE(6) / AUT-NUM objects
by Job Snijders 28 Jul '16

28 Jul '16

Dear Working Group, This is a slighly longer problem statement, please bear with us. There has been a LOT of discussion about the problems related to out-of-region ROUTE(6) and AUT-NUM objects in the RIPE Database. We would like to provide a starting point of the problem definition here, and ask the community to discuss it further. NWI-5 - Out of region ROUTE(6) / AUT-NUM objects ---------- The RIPE Database Internet Routing Registry (IRR) requires authorisation to create ROUTE(6) objects, by the appropriate maintainer for the covering inet(6)num object - or an existing covering ROUTE(6) object for the prefix in the "route(6):" attribute, as well as the appropriate maintainer for aut-num object matching the "origin:". For resources within the RIPE region this authorisation is covered by either: * Objects that RIPE NCC creates upon assigning or allocating resources to LIRs or end-users with a sponsoring LIR * Objects held by legacy resource holders (authorisation may be delegated to others by holders of these objects) However for out-of-region space the authorisation is different. Because out-of-region resources are not maintained in the RIPE Database there are no proper maintainers in the RIPE Database to authorise the creation of such objects. Because there is a need for having ROUTE(6) objects for these routes, and there were no authoritative alternative IRRs available, the RIPE community decided to support the creation of these objects in the RIPE Database IRR through the use of placeholder objects for out-of-region IP resources and ASNs. In case of IP resources the INET(6)NUM objects delegate authorisation to create route objects through "mnt-routes:" to a special use maintainer with a well-known password: RIPE-NCC-RPSL-MNT. In case of out-of-region ASNs the RIPE NCC maintains placeholder AS-BLOCK objects. Since "mnt-routes:" does not exist on AS-BLOCK objects the RIPE-NCC-RPSL-MNT is added to "mnt-lower:" here instead. Any user of the database can therefore create a AUT-NUM object for an out-of-region ASN, and use it to authorise ROUTE(6) objects. There are a number of problems resulting from this approach: * Authorisation for out-of-region objects is anecdotal * Globally duplicate AUT-NUM objects are required for out-of-region ASNs, confusing contact information, policy etc * This facilitates hijacking for out-of-region resources and RIPE NCC is neither mandated nor staffed to deal with these issues. * Detailed placeholders need to be maintained, which causes overhead especially w.r.t. inter-RIR transfers --------- We invite the working group to better define this problem definition so that a structured discussion about (partial) solutions can follow. Kind regards, Job

3 2

Re: [db-wg] NWI-3 - AFRINIC IRR Homing
by Daniel Shaw 20 Jul '16

20 Jul '16

> > NWI-3 - Afrinic IRR Homing > -------- > > In recent years Afrinic set up an IRR instance that enforces > authorisation for ROUTE(6) objects at rr.afrinic.net > > And while the general problem of out-of-region ROUTE(6) and AUT-NUM > objects in the RIPE Database IRR, and the problem where the prefix > and the ASN belong to different regions is not trivial to resolve, > there seems to be a general consensus that simple cases where > ROUTE(6) objects have both an ASN and prefix in Afrinic (~34k > objects), should appear in the Afrinic IRR where authorisation can > be done and not in the RIPE DB. > Hello NCC DB WG, Just a note to mention that AFRINIC supports this as a valid problem statement and is looking forward to working with you on the solution phase. Cheers, Daniel

1 0

NWI-2 - displaying history for DB objects where available
by Job Snijders 12 Jul '16

12 Jul '16

Dear Working Group, This is the second Numbered Work Item. (You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.) --------- NWI-2: The RIPE NCC was tasked with the following action point: AP69.2 [RIPE NCC] Come up with some straw man proposals for displaying history for objects where available. The RIPE Database already provides a mechanism for object history. In our understanding the problem statement that motivated the action point is that some people are interested in seeing the history of *deleted* objects. It is our understanding that this interest is mainly focussed on primary (resource) objects. However, it is not entirely clear to the RIPE NCC why this is useful. We also have some concerns, mainly non-technical, and therefore we believe that the problem statement and motivation needs to be better defined in the working group. --------- The next step is to help refine the problem statement. I would appreciate it if working group participants with an interest in the history of objects speak up and elaborate on the issue. Kind regards, Job

7 9

Progress on Numbered Work Items - July 2016
by Job Snijders 09 Jul '16

09 Jul '16

Dear working group, As discussed during the Database Working Group session at RIPE 72, we have now published the new process, as well as an overview of the ongoing Numbered Work Items (NWIs) here: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/numbered-work-items We currently have the following five NWIs, all in state "Problem Definition": NWI-1 Staying on top of abuse contact changes (2 responses) NWI-2 Displaying history for database objects where available (some discussion involving 3 people) NWI-3 AFRINIC IRR homing (5 responses) NWI-4 Role of status: field in multivalued status context (2 responses) NWI-5 Out of region ROUTE(6) / AUT-NUM objects (zero responses) <!--- ?!?! NWI-6 Applicable data model not clear from contextless objects (2 responses) Kind regards, Job

1 0

NWI-6 Applicable data model not clear from contextless objects
by Job Snijders 28 Jun '16

28 Jun '16

Dear WG, Please review the below problem statement: -------- NWI-6 - Applicable data model not clear from contextless objects Currently it is not possible to derive what semantics or data model applies to a RPSL object in the RIPE database. This disadvantageous property introduces complexity all across the board: - redefining the semantics of an existing RPSL attribute introduces operational complexity. - operators have precisely align their client-side software deployment with the RIPE database deployment timeline. - deprecating RPSL attributes which are "mandatory" (as defined in the RPSL dictionary) is challenging as a client cannot know if the object stems from a time in which the attribute was mandatory or not. - objects which are provided without historical context are hard to parse, one cannot programmatically know how to interpret the attributes or assess which attributes should have been there. ------- As author of this problem statement and co-chair of this Working Group I have the following notes I'd like to share. Reflecting on the past period in which I was tasked to assist the group in helping the database progress, I've observed that any change or even proposal for change in the database is easily met with detestation. A recurring theme is that post-deployment people comment "I was not expecting this", and before in the proposal phase other stakeholders state "this is too complex to deploy, we'll break old clients". I believe that if we somehow address the issue of introducing change _itself_, we'll garner a crucial feature which will be rewarding in whatever direction the database takes in future.

3 2

NWI-4 - role of status: field in multivalued status context
by Job Snijders 27 Jun '16

27 Jun '16

Dear Working Group, (You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.) NWI-4 --------- The RIPE NCC was tasked with the following action point: AP70.2 [RIPE NCC] Come up with a proposal for the status: field to fix the requirement that certain objects may need multivalued status. Some believe that the main underlying issue here is that it is currently not possible to create an assignment that is the same size as an allocation in the RIPE Database. And resource holders are of course supposed to create an assignment for the address space in an allocation that is in use, by address policy. The main reason for this limitation is that the INET(6)NUM attribute is a primary key. There is a work-around for this problem. Instead of creating an assignment of the same size it's possible to create two smaller assignments instead. In our (red: RIPE NCC) experience this work-around has always been accepted. Still if the allocation is used as a whole, having a single assignment for the whole block is a more accurate reflection of reality, and it reduces the amount of objects to maintain. ---------- The AP70.2 action point refers to a suggest solution, following earlier discussion. But the chairs believe it would be good to bring this back to a clear problem statement first, and then suggest different solutions and their respective benefits and/or problems. Furthermore address-policy wg policies mention the different statuses and what the different statusses reflect. Therefore we'll need to inform the address policy working group as well. If you agree or disagree with this problem statement, please indicate your opinion on this mailinglist. Refinements to the text are welcome too. Kind regards, Job

3 3

NWI-1 - staying on top of abuse contact changes
by Job Snijders 27 Jun '16

27 Jun '16

Dear WG, This is our first Numbered Work Item! We are now in phase 1. (You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.) The following preliminary problem statement has been put forth by Denis & Piotr: "The resource holder could be unaware of changes made to the abuse contact details for his/her resources. This could happen as a result of any addition, change or deletion of any part of the abuse contact details put in his/her ORGANISATION object ("abuse-c: attribute, referenced ROLE object, "abuse-mailbox:" attribute)." I ask the working group whether they agree with this problem statement, they can identify with the problem, whether the statement needs amendments. Kind regards, Job

3 3

Deployed 1.87.4 with two fixes for business rules
by Tim Bruijnzeels 22 Jun '16

22 Jun '16

Dear working group, We deployed version 1.87.4 to production earlier this week with two fixes for business rules that impacted a number of users: 1) It was not possible to set "mnt-lower:" on INET6NUM objects with status "ALLOCATED-BY-RIR". This restriction existed when object editors were used, but was ignored at that time because object editors used a different authorisation method. The restriction has now been removed. 2) The fix in 1.87.3 allowed "netname:" to be changed on objects with status "ASSIGNED PI", but unfortunately not for other "ASSIGNED" objects. We have made sure that the restriction only applies to INET(6)NUM objects for allocations done by the RIPE NCC. To summarise the following business rules apply to objects that are 'co-maintained', i.e. allocations, assignments or legacy space that is registered with RIPE NCC: = Allocations INETNUM objects with "status:" ALLOCATED PA, ALLOCATED PI or ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED, and INET6NUM objects with "status:" ALLOCATED-BY-RIR Restricted attributes: netname, org, sponsoring-org, status, mnt-by (you can only change your default maintainer through the LIR Portal) = Assignments INET(6)NUM objects with at least one RIPE-NCC-XYZ-MNT and "status:" ASSIGNED PI, or ASSIGNED ANYCAST Restricted attributes: org, sponsoring-org, status, mnt-by (you cannot add or remove RIPE-NCC-XYZ-MNT) and mnt-lower = Legacy space registered with RIPE NCC INETNUM objects at least one RIPE-NCC-X-MNT and "status:" LEGACY Restricted attributes: org, sponsoring-org, status, mnt-by (you cannot add or remove RIPE-NCC-XYZ-MNT) In addition to this, all objects described above can only be deleted by RIPE NCC. I hope this makes it clear how we apply business to these objects. If you have any questions or comments, please let us know. Kind regards, Tim Bruijnzeels Assistant Manager Software Engineering RIPE NCC Database Group

1 0