- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Tagging of IP adresses / Application-Database
by Nacamar AS Guardian 07 Jun '99

07 Jun '99

Hi, at RIPE-Meeting 33, the issue on the agenda of the lir-wg of "Tagging of IP adresses and ANTI SPAM" was rejected. Partly, because this has been implemented by Paul Vixi, http://maps.vix.com/dul Further, it was felt that these tags should not be an addition to the IP-Objects, because it has a much broader range of possible applications. So, the issue was handed over to the db-wg to think about a new application-registry. Such an application-object could look like: >>> location: [mandatory] [single] [primary/look-up key] app-type: [mandatory] [single] [primary key] app-subtype: [mandatory] [single] [primary key] descr: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ] admin-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key] tech-c: [mandatory] [multiple] [inverse key] remarks: [optional] [multiple] [ ] notify: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key] mnt-by: [optional] [multiple] [inverse key] changed: [mandatory] [multiple] [ ] source: [mandatory] [single] [ ] <<< Location would be a range of IP-Addresses or maybe a hostname, app-type a value/keyword like "nameserver", "dialin", "mail" etc., app-subtype a more detailed code for the application, like root-nameserver, tld-nameserver, cc-nameserver, etc. Details to be discussed... Then descr, contacts etc, just the usual stuff. Technically, this shouldn't be too hard, but the main questions remain on the administrative side: - who would use this database, and for what purpose (Anti-SPAM, better route-flap-dampening ...) - who should insert/maintain the contents - how to determine if the contents are 'legal', e.g. come from the 'owner' of the mentioned ip-ranges/hosts - what to do if someone protests against some contents, or claims damages because of some contents Just to spark a bit of discussion... Best Regards, HaJo Gurt ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nacamar Network Administration NACAMAR Data Communications guardian(a)nacamar.net Robert-Bosch-Str. 32 D-63303 Dreieich +49 6103 993 0 Voice Germany +49 6103 993 222 FAX gurt(a)nacamar.de ------------------------------------------------------------------- Titanic 12 - Hiroshima 45 - Tschernobyl 86 - Windows 95 - Silvester 99

3 4

Re: Tagging of IP adresses / Application-Database
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 04 Jun '99

04 Jun '99

=> >> back to basics: The only thing I wanted was an attribute => >> which said "SMTP connections from these IP numbers shouldn't happen" Yup, that was where it came from :-) And we are grateful to you for seeing this "spark" to get the whole discussion going! => > => >'overloading' of the current IP-Database with additional, => >basically unrelated informations was not wanted. => => Rather than bloat the idea to that size, I thing I'd rather drop => the proposal then. = =Ok, that would be the easiest way to get this issue done, sort of... Well, from the "users'" point of view, the innards of the implementation shouldn't be that important ?? >On the other hand, the administrative overhead >for the IP-Database with tags as extensions >is likely to be at least the same >as for a new, separate database. During the various discussions we hit a few interesting aspects (non-exhaustive list): - people do have a broad set of ideas what they woukd like to see documented. From dial-up use of IP addresses to "golden" networks for registry servers or root NS, to web-cache sites/peerings, to IPv6 tunnels... - the problem of over-loading existing objects, both schema-wise as well as maintainance-wise. E.g., for a larger ISP there's a good chance that the LIR staff wouldn't want to/be able to maintain application level entries... - the problem of authority for the data. We do have "over-loading" already, within the RIPE-DB. . I.e. the DB is (formally) authoritative for IP numbers, . it's a "reasonable" place to offer a routing registry service, but with much less (formal) authority attached by the NCC . it's offered/used as a repository for DNS data, discussion has started if "authority" for that subset should be moved to CENTR . an application type registry probably needs some sort of environment. Learning from DNS, I suppose the NCC is very reluctant to spend implementation effort unless we can come up with a model for use, authority and - eventually - funding. But, this list is emphasising the potential stumbling blocks... I'd be much more interested in proposals on the use and setup, how to maintain the data, how to derive and attach credibility, and the like. The floor is your's! Input, please! Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

status on RIPE-DB rewrite
by Rick H. Wesson 04 Jun '99

04 Jun '99

can anyone give a status on the ripe-db rewrite in 'C' thanks, -Rick

1 0

New RIPE DB sw version
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 04 Jun '99

04 Jun '99

Dear all, the RIPE NCC is happy to announce version 2.3 of the RIPE Database software. This new version introduces complete support for the IPv6 address objects. Only the RIPE NCC can introduce objects with value ALLOCATED in the status field of IPv4 address objects. This reflects the current registration policy. Some other minor features and a number of bug fixes have been introduced. For more details, please see the release notes included below and on the software package. This new version is available immediately from ftp.ripe.net and will be used on whois.ripe.net starting next Monday (7th June). Regards, Joao Damas DB Group RIPE NCC

1 0

Proposal to change default source search behavior in the whois server
by Jake Khuon 27 May '99

27 May '99

Currently, the RIPE whois server returns a result from a single-source (RIPE) search by default. One needs to pass a -a flag in order to obtain multiple-source returns. Because of this behaviour in conjunction with the necessity to allow a "defaulted" query to return inetnums, the architecture of the database is limited to a single source. For those organisations who may wish to run their own registry and participate in mirroring, this poses a considerable issue. I propose that the behaviour be modified so that the default would be to return a single-match first-hit from multiple-source search. That is, a query will return only one result but it will search through the source search order and return the first match it finds rather than simply stopping at the RIPEdb. -- /*====================[ Jake Khuon <khuon(a)GCtr.Net> ]======================+ | Network Statistics Engineer, NSM/Net-Eng /~ |2 () |\| ~|~ | @ |2 | | VOX: +1(408)328-4828 Fax: +1(408)328-4806 _/~ G L & B A L C E N T E R | +============[ 1154 East Arques Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 ]============*/

1 0

2. Draft, proposed agenda DB-WG meeting RIPE-33, Thu.,May 6
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 05 May '99

05 May '99

Dear WG participants, dear WG-Chairs, here's the final draft agenda for the DB-WG meeting. Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Agenda for the Database Working Group Meeting RIPE-33, May 1999, Vienna, AT 2. Draft A. Administrative stuff (Wilfried Woeber, chair) - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing - review of action items B. RIPE DB, operational update (RIPE NCC) - statistics, performance, changes, most recent mod.s - RPSL migration update, usage - current status of PGP deployment C. DB SW Re-implementation (RIPE NCC) - progress, milestones/roadmap, deployment, documentation - operational aspects, mirrors, clients - proposal to *not* migrate obsoleted objects and attributes . dom-prefix . others? D. I-D draft-ietf-rps-auth-??, -rps-dist-?? (??) - RIPE region requirements/comments - any progress E. DB Consistency Project (RIPE NCC) - status update F. IPv6 issues - what are the loose ends? . Routing registry (RPSLng ?) . Objects . IP-registry X. IETF report(s) if any :-) Y. Input from other TFs/WGs - LIR-WG: application specific registries? DUL, Root-NS, TLD-NS,.... - DBsec TF mission accomplished? mandate for continuation? next activities, if any at all? Z. AOB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WW, 5-MAY-1999 13:46:59

1 0

1. Draft, proposed agenda DB-WG meeting RIPE-33 @ Vienna
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 23 Apr '99

23 Apr '99

Dear WG participants, dear WG-Chairs, attached please find a very preliminary agenda draft for the DB-WG meeting in Vienna in May. Any comments and proposals for modification are very much appreciated. Looking forward to see you in Vienna, Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Agenda for the Database Working Group Meeting RIPE-33, May 1999, Vienna, AT 1. Draft A. Administrative stuff (Wilfried Woeber, chair) - appointment of scribe - agenda bashing - review of action items B. RIPE DB, operational update (RIPE NCC) - statistics, performance, changes, most recent mod.s - RPSL migration update, usage - current status of PGP deployment D. DB SW Re-implementation (RIPE NCC) - progress, milestones/roadmap, deployment, documentation - operational aspects, mirrors, clients - proposal to *not* migrate obsoleted objects and attributes . dom-prefix . others? E. I-D draft-ietf-rps-auth-??, -rps-dist-?? (??) - RIPE region requirements/comments - any progress X. IETF report(s) Y. Input from other WGs - t.b.d. Z. AOB ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WW, 23-APR-1999 15:03:27

1 0

Adding nic handles to contact objects without one (72 chars/line)
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 20 Apr '99

20 Apr '99

Thou shall not send vi docs directly on a mail! At people's request here goes the mail again with sorter lines. Regards, Joao ------- Include message ------ Dear all, During the month of February the RIPE NCC, at the RIPE Database working group's request after the RIPE 32 meeting in Amsterdam, put out a proposal to add automatically generated nic handles to existing person objects that do not currently have one. Some other unrelated issues have caused me to not follow this up appropriately. I am sorry for that. In order to resume (and hopefully swiftly conclude) this issue, I will use the rest of this message to summarize the state of discussions. I would like to ask for a 10 day discussion period after which I will summarize the conclusion to the list and have the Database group take whatever action is agreed to. Summary: The initial proposal called just for the addition of an automatically generated nic handle to person and role objects which currently do not have one. This would be done using the same automatic procedure used by the Database software when a user request an AUTO nic handle. That is, the database takes up to 4 initials from the name, looks for the highest exisiting number of a nic handle in the sequence of nic handles with the same initials, generates a new number and adds the suffix "-RIPE". Input received discussed if we should use the opportunity and try to modify some database objects that reference person and role objects by name instead of nic handle as is required now in the RIPE Database. These are two separate issues. The first one could be approved without the second one. The first one alone brings old objects up to date to current specifications, simplifies the prorammers life and enables further steps to increase the DB's consistency. In my personal opinion it is a Good Thing. The main advantage of the second part is that: - References by nic handle are less ambiguous than references by name since the DB ensures that there are no duplicate nic handles whereas there is no reason why two persons can't have the same name. (Note: currently there are around 30 duplicate nic handles in the RIPE DB due to legacy objects from the past and bugs in past releases of the software. This problem is being addressed in the context of the RIPE DB consistency project. There will be an extensive report on the progress of this project in the coming RIPE meeting in Vienna). Doing this doesn't solve all the problems, naturally, and may have some problems as itemized below: - If the reference by name is to a name for which more than one object exists then there is an ambiguity that can't be handled automatically. The solution to this requires intervention by the referencing object's owner. This will be handled by the DB consistency project. - If there is no object with the referenced name then the referencing object is at least partially orphaned. This issue will also be addressed by the DB consistency project and may eventually need further policy decisions in the future, to be discussed by the community. - There is a chance that a person/role object with a refenced name exists and is unique but is not the one that created the referencing object. Eg. if I created an inetnum object in 1991 but then deleted my person object and then my twin ghost registered in the DB and created some new objects: should the original inetnum object (still in the database) be linked to my twin ghost (who probably doesn't know anything about it)? If this issue is seen as a heavy one then no name references can be modified to references by NIC handle automatically, unless an exhaustive search of the DB update logs is performed (and even then, there is no guaranteed result). I think this summarizes the state of affairs. Please give your input as soon as possible so that a conclusion can be reached. If possible, address the original and the extension proposal separately. Thanks, Joao Damas RIPE DB Group Manager RIPE NCC

3 2

Re: Objects to deprecate (OSI dom-prefix)
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 16 Apr '99

16 Apr '99

Wearing my plain DB user hat, >the RIPE NCC hereby requests from the RIPE community to consider NOT >to support the Domain-prefix object in the new RIPE DB code currently >under development. >This would mean not writing the code to support the object and dump the data >in the transition to the new code (still a few months away). I fully support this proposal. Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Objects to deprecate (OSI dom-prefix)
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 16 Apr '99

16 Apr '99

Dear all, the RIPE NCC hereby requests from the RIPE community to consider NOT to support the Domain-prefix object in the new RIPE DB code currently under development. This would mean not writing the code to support the object and dump the data in the transition to the new code (still a few months away). This object is intented to store OSI CLNS prefixes and has seen little use. Currently there are 6 objects of this type. The most current update took place in May 1994. The prefixes stored right now are: 39.528f.1100 39.756f.1111 39.756f 39.250f 39.250f.0000.02 39.276f.3100 in case the owners want to inspect them and check their use :-) Best regards, Joao Damas RIPE NCC

2 1