- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

July 2023 Database Working Group update
by David Tatlisu 04 Aug '23

04 Aug '23

Hello everyone, The mailing list has been buzzing this month! This mail is intended to serve as a summary of what happened on the mailing list and behind the scenes. ####################################################################################################################### By far, one of the most active threads concerned the correct *use of the "route" and "route6" objects in a DDOS mitigation scenario. *[1] *Context:* Kaupo Ehtnurm runs a multihomed AS, and one of his upstream providers offers DDOS mitigation service. To ensure all traffic passes through the DDOS mitigation service, they announce a more specific prefix. Kaupo explains that to achieve this, they need to create ROAs and Route objects. ROAs have a max-length field, which allows Kaupo to use just one ROA for a /32 IPv6 with the max-length set to /48. As route objects do not have a max-length field, they explain that they would have to create 65536 /48 route6 objects for their /32, which is difficult to manage. They ask why route objects don't have a comparable "max-length" field.* **Related discussion:* Most of the discussion does not concern the possible reasons why a "max-length" field for route-objects does not exist, but rather discusses operational practice and the actual behavior of DDOS mitigation announcements. Job Snijders explains some of the possible reasons this field does not exist [2]. Job [2] and Nick Hilliard [3] have recommended reading BCP 185 / RFC 9319 for additional information regarding best practices. *Majority consensus:* From what I was able to determine, the following statements are the majority consensus: * Most networks will accept the more specific prefixes, even without a more-specific route object. [4] [5] [6] [7] o Networks have their own reasons for why or why not they might filter more-specifics. [7] [8] [9] o Some traffic might still take the aggregate route instead of the more-specific, this shouldn't be a problem in practice. [10] o Testing the behavior of routes using tools like RIPE Atlas might yield different results, but is said to be unlikely. [7] * Creating a route object for every /48 in a /32 is not recommended. [11] [12] o Announcing and creating route objects for slightly longer prefixes like a few /33 or /34 instead of many /48 might be an acceptable compromise. [13] ####################################################################################################################### Another very active thread was started by Denis Walker, Co-chair of this working group, and concerned*the participation of working group chairs in discussions. *[14] *Context:* Starting the discussion, Denis Walker has explained that he – following feedback from community members – has decided to reduce his community engagement temporarily to evaluate the effect on the working group. He explains that he has not seen current NWIs progress during this time, and that, in his opinion, the lack of engagement by co chairs does not work in some working groups. He states that he will return to his original level of engagement. *Majority consensus: *From what I was able to determine, the following statements are the majority consensus: * Overall, people support active working group chairs that drive discussion, but do not support working group chairs taking a side as a working group chair. [15] [16] [17] * Working group chairs can express their personal opinion when they remove themself from the working group position. [18] [19] *Related discussion:* Most of the discussion has been about co-chair neutrality in discussions. Denis referenced RIPE documents outlaying the responsibilities of a co-chair, where one co chair expressing their opinion to drive discussion is not prohibited. [20] This was followed up by Nick Hilliard, referencing information regarding non-RIPE chair responsibilities. [21] In the end, a policy proposal to clarify the rules was mentioned. [22] [23] ####################################################################################################################### *News from the NCC* * The "rev-srv:" attribute, which was deprecated in 2009, was removed on July 27th. The maintainers of about 34,711 affected objects were informed. [24] * The "NONE" authentication scheme, which was deprecated in 2004, was removed on July 27th. The maintainers of about 613 affected objects were informed. [25] * Client certificate authentication is planned for the database. The NCC has a working implementation internally and is working on getting it ready for production. * The NCC is working on impact analysis concerning a "tuple" solution for NWI-4, where the prefix and status are considered part of the primary key. This will be published soon. * Preparing for the open-source release, the web application for the RIPE Database service is being audited by an external company. This audit is planned to finish by the end of August. #######################################################################################################################* Personal note * Please do not hesitate to tell me if you think I should have included something, or I misrepresented something. I didn't want to go into too much detail, and contemplated a lot about the things to include. You are welcome to contact me if you'd like changes to the format, or you would just like to mention that you thought it was good. I appreciate all feedback. * * ####################################################################################################################### *All the links* Route objects for DDOS mitigation: [1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007843.html [2] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007859.html [3] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007855.html [4] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007855.html [5] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007867.html [6] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007856.html [7] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007862.html [8] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007866.html [9] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007868.html [10] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007861.html [11] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007865.html [12] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007865.html [13] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007861.html The participation of working group chairs in discussions: [14] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007869.html [15]https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007873.html [16] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007880.html [17] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007891.html [18] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007872.html [19] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007875.html [20] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007883.html [21] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007886.html [22] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007889.html [23] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007890.html NCC news: [24] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007877.html [25] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2023-July/007878.html

2 1

Authoritative check for domain objects seems to cache nameserver response
by Kjartan Hrafnkelsson - HI 02 Aug '23

02 Aug '23

Dear colleagues, When creating domain objects for reverse DNS delegation of a RIPE assigned inetnum or inet6num, I have observed behaviour where entering a nameserver not authoritative for the in-addr.arpa or ip6.arpa zone results in that nameserver being temporarily unable to be used for delegation. The interface keeps rejecting that particular nameserver for the reason of 'not being authoritative for <zone>', even if the nameserver's configuration has been updated accordingly. What I personally suspect is happening here is that the service on the backend of RIPE NCC's database has sent a DNS request to the specified nameserver, received a response, and cached it. I'm writing this email to ask a couple of questions: Is this intended behaviour? if it is, should it perhaps be changed? and if so, how should changes be implemented? I'm excited to hear back from you, especially as many colleagues within the networking space have expressed frustration from forgetting to configure their nameservers first or misconfiguring them and then having to wait a day or two to re-do the delegation. I had tried my best to search the db-wg list archives for a similar discussion before writing this entry but could find nothing of substance, please forgive me if this has been discussed before and perhaps decided on :) Best, -- Kjartan, AS51019 +354 784-0020 kjh14(a)hi.is

2 1

Removing RIPE-NCC-NONE-MNT remarks from objects in the RIPE database
by Edward Shryane 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

Dear colleagues, The "NONE" authentication scheme was deprecated in the RIPE database in 2004: https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/deprecation-of-the-non… At that time, "remarks:" attributes were added to objects in the RIPE database to explain this change: remarks: Maintainer RIPE-NCC-NONE-MNT removed and object remarks: LOCKED by the RIPE NCC due to remarks: deprecation of the NONE authentication scheme. remarks: Please visit the following URL to unlock this object remarks: http://www.ripe.net/db/none-deprecation-042004.html As mentioned in my Operational Update at RIPE86, I propose to remove these obsolete remarks from all objects, on *Thursday 27th July*. This change will affect approximately 613 objects. We plan to notify the maintainers of all affected objects afterwards. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

1 1

Removing "rev-srv:" remarks from inetnum objects in the RIPE database
by Edward Shryane 27 Jul '23

27 Jul '23

Dear colleagues, The "rev-srv:" attribute was deprecated in inetnum objects in the RIPE database in April 2009: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2009-April/001130.h… However the "rev-srv:" attribute was not removed but was converted into a "remarks:" attribute. As mentioned in my Operational Update at RIPE86, I propose to remove these obsolete remarks from all objects, on *Thursday 27th July*. This change will affect approximately 34,711 objects. We plan to notify the maintainers of all affected objects afterwards. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC

2 2

Where are we with NWIs?
by denis walker 24 Jul '23

24 Jul '23

Colleagues One or two vocal members of this community frequently express their opinion that all WG chairs should sit silently in the background, post an occasional review and wait to declare consensus or not. I am always willing to try out ideas from the community. So for the last couple of months, since RIPE 86, I have stayed silent on DB matters. How has the conversation been on NWIs? Oh there hasn't been any. How have they progressed beyond some steps already in progress? Oh there hasn't been any. Are we any closer to completing action on most NWIs? Er no we aren't. So I think it is fair to say this is not an appropriate way of working with some WGs these days. I will now go back to my previous way of working where, as a co-chair, I do have an agenda - to get things done, for the good of the internet. Whether you consider that a 'personal' or 'professional' or 'DB' agenda is up to you. Just to be clear, this is not the same as for the good of 'operators'. There are many stakeholder groups in this community now. We are no longer just 'the operator community' or even 'the technical community'. So I will continue to engage with the community, push out ideas (even crazy ideas sometimes), start and drive conversations until we get resolutions. Incidentally, this quiet period since RIPE 86 does remind us how busy you all are and how difficult it is for you to find the time to get so involved with the fine detail of small technical and operational changes to the RIPE Database. Which does fit with the presentation I did at RIPE 86 on how to manage the RIPE Database. I will come back to that shortly. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

7 12

WG Co-Chairs Tasks (was: Where are we with NWIs?)
by Sylvain Baya 21 Jul '23

21 Jul '23

{change the topic. focus: basic tasks} Dear RIPE DB-WG, Hope this email finds you in good health. Please see my comments below inline... Thanks. Le mercredi 19 juillet 2023, denis walker via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> a écrit : > Colleagues > > One or two vocal members of this community frequently express their > opinion that all WG chairs should sit silently in the background, post an > occasional review and wait to declare consensus or not. > Hi Denis, Thanks for your email, brother. ...you seem to disagree with the WG consensus :-) or it's just with those few "vocal" WG participants? Do seek, first, if there is any rough consensus, or not, please. Is there actually any consensus on the matter? > > I am always willing to try out ideas from the community. > That's not part of the tasks of Co-Chairs, imho :-/ ...i may be wrong, though. Again! you *must* ask to the WG participants if they are ok with that idea, first...prior to engage on disruptive behavior. > So for the last couple of months, since RIPE 86, I have stayed silent on > DB matters. > > Please, it's not about you, brother. If you push back to the WG, you would be less concerned about your WG participant's opinions. In what, as a Co-chair, shall you be concerned about your WG's participant opinions? Please think of it twice, brother...if you care much; then how could you act fairly? or in other words: Do you expect your WG participants to hope to get a fair process, at end? > How has the conversation been on NWIs? > > Which one? Is it into the Co-chair's tasks list to follow-up on the active NWIs progress? > > Oh there hasn't been any. > > This WG have three Co-chairs, may i suggest to our Co-chairs to: 1] organise their team; 2] identify their *willing* regular tasks list; 3] discuss it with the DB-WG; 4] distribute the resulting regular tasks list amongst them (Co-chairs) 5] bind on that. > > How have they progressed beyond some steps already in progress? > Oh there hasn't been any. > Are we any closer to completing action on most NWIs? > Er no we aren't. > > Please, do not justify a disruptive behavior by stats poured like that. It *should* not work that way, brother: 1| remove your hat first 2| voice your personal opinion 3| wait the other Co-chairs to seek any consensus 4| put back your Co-chair's hat 5| and go ahead. That's, imho, what Randy is trying to recommend, if i got it well. > > So I think it is fair to say this is not an appropriate way of working > with some WGs these days. > The DB-WG may be an exception, but how to deal with that difference? Revisit the Co-chair's tasks list? What else? > > I will now go back to my previous way of working where, as a co-chair, I > do have an agenda - to get things done, > Please read my previous comments :-) Yes to "Get Things Done"! No to handle "Things" without rough consensus! Yes to do any-"Thing " with "no hat"! > > for the good of the internet. > We have already experienced that before and we know that the "good of the Internet" is a matter of collaborative engagement of any stakeholders available. ...but! don't get me wrong, please: i have no doubt on your sincerity or capacity to act as fairly as it would be possible. Note that those who would come after you would also benefit to whatever disruption we would have agreed on now. Imagine, then, some really bad actor with own hidden *agenda* taking the position after you...what would be the safeguards? ...i stop here, while thinking to have said enough on this topic. By the way! i personally appreciate the fondamental values and expertise of Denis and i hope we would be able to get more benefit on his presence on this WG. Shalom, --sb. > Whether you consider that a 'personal' or 'professional' or 'DB' agenda is > up to you. Just to be clear, this is not the same as for the good of > 'operators'. There are many stakeholder groups in this community now. We > are no longer just > 'the operator community' or even 'the technical community'. > > So I will continue to engage with the community, push out ideas (even > crazy ideas sometimes), start and drive conversations until we get > resolutions. Incidentally, this quiet period since RIPE 86 does remind > us how busy you all are and how difficult it is for you to find the > time to get so involved with the fine detail of small technical and > operational changes to the RIPE Database. Which does fit with the > presentation I did at RIPE 86 on how to manage the RIPE Database. I > will come back to that shortly. > > cheers > denis > co-chair DB-WG > > -- > [...] -- Best Regards ! __ baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure> Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)

2 2

Progress on NWI-4
by Wessel Sandkuijl 20 Jul '23

20 Jul '23

Hi, I've reviewed Ed's impact analysis for NWI-4 and his proposal to add a new status value "ALLOCATED-ASSIGNED PA". This will not cover all use cases and it's use will most likely be limited as most people are used to the "ALLOCATED PA" versus "ASSIGNED PA" status values. I would highly prefer the earlier alternative proposal to use a tuple (using both prefix and status) so no new status value is introduced to the RIPE database. Can this be moved forward? Regards, Wessel Sandkuijl

4 4

Route(6) objects
by Kaupo Ehtnurm 12 Jul '23

12 Jul '23

Hello For example I have 2001:1234::/32 ipv6 network. And I want to start using DDoS protection service that one of my ip transit provider offers. But my edge routers are multihomed and enabling ddos protection on one transit provider lets half of the attack still come in from our other ip transit providers in case of DDoS attack. But if our ip transit provider that provides also a ddos protection would hijack the routes from us with more specific routes, then instead of traffic flowing from my other ip transit providers to my AS it flows to my DDOS protection providers AS. Route hijacking solves the problem where half of the attack still comes in to my AS from other transit providers. For in order for the DDoS protection service provider to be able to hijack the routes correctly from us we need to have more specific ROA and route(6) objects done. With ROA it is easy, I just create the following ROA: " 2001:1234::/32 max length 48 ASN AS1234" But with route(6) objects this isn't so easy, because these objects don't have max length or any other operators that it accepts. And because of that I need to hope the entire internet to accept all the /48s that fit into 2001:1234::/32 prefix if I have following route6 object: " 2001:1234::/32 AS1234". But to be correct with my db records I would need to make all the /48 route6 objects that fit into that /32 and instead of 1 object I need to create 65536 objects. First of all I would hit the object creation limit per day in ripe DB. With this limit enabled, I would create the records over 2 months. And the manageability of those records would be a nightmare. If ROAs and route(6) objects go hand-in-hand anyway for the most of the time, then why can't route objects have "max length" or somekind of operator like ROAs have? Lugupidamisega / Best regards, Kaupo Ehtnurm Network & System administrator WaveCom AS ISO 9001 & 27001 Certified DC and verified VMware Cloud kaupo(a)wavecom.ee | +372 5685 0002 Endla 16, Tallinn 10142 Estonia | [ http://www.wavecom.ee/ | www.wavecom.ee ]

9 22

Co-chairs Personal Goals versus only DB Working Group Goals
by Sylvain Baya 08 Jul '23

08 Jul '23

{thread changed to add a maybe late comment} Dear RIPE DB-WG, Hope this email finds you in good health! Please see my comments below, inline... Thanks. Le vendredi 9 juin 2023, denis walker via db-wg <db-wg(a)ripe.net> a écrit : > Hi Randy > > That would be fine if we had a very active and engaging community. Like we > had 20 years ago. > > Hi Denis, Thanks for your email, brother! No excuse! to try to bypass the reminded principle. ...imho! > But the vast vast vast majority of this community is silent on almost all > database matters. The vocal people are a handful of well known members of > the community, > > ...i suspect that it's not only an era problem; my guess is simply that it might be more a matter of natural growth of the population/community. If you check old and current stats of participation ratio, i submit that it would be *almost* influenced only by the population/community growth, with relatively nearly the same numbers of real active participants... That argument of delegitimating those who are voluntarily participating, is not convincing me... How come that those who.are participating are *blamed*? Where are, actually, the others? What's the $threshold of non-representativity? ...i would agree with a *WG's goal* tasking the DB-WG Co-chairs to find a way to have more participation than that $threshold. > whose views on many matters are also quite well known. > > Are we really able to handle more various opinions? ...i mean, you know, suppose half of the accounts subscribed show up here with theirs contributions. ...i agree that it might not be what you asked for; then maybe you should work (or ask RIPE NCC) on finding a way to address the $threshold issue, when identified. > > Sometimes someone raises a point and it gets little or no response. Like > assigning an allocation. Often the chairs know from face to face > discussions, people want this option. But there is no discussion. In > situations like this I've found that a chair needs to drive the discussion. > > Maybe you could (non exclusively): option#1: start with regular reports or blog articles to inform the whole community of those issues raised privately option#2: advise those, who choose to discuss public matters privately, to post it on list; in order to expect the support of part of the WG. option#3: collect allowed private comments to the Staff; for inclusion consideration into their next PIER [*]. > > Even if that means making an outrageous suggestion that no one will agree > to, but it generates a reaction. From the following discussion we can move > forward. > > Also sometimes a chair needs to throw ideas out into the community to move > the service forwards. The chairs talk with the NCC engineers. We often > discuss ideas that no one in the community is thinking about. If the chairs > don't then raise it with the community the idea can never be considered. > > Not sure! imho! the Staff should have a way [1] to share their experience and recommendations regarding their implementation of the Policy Manual. They should share these information on that channel...and if it no longer exists; please ask for a reboot. > So either the chairs or the NCC engineers need to be able to put ideas > into the public domain, and sometimes drive the discussion to get it > started, or technically and socially the database as a product and service > just stagnates. > > __ [*]: PIER (Policy Implementation Experience Report) *Purpose of Policy Experience Report* < https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_34/PDF/thursday/nobi… > <quote_page2> *Purpose of Policy Experience Report* *• Review existing policies – Ambiguous text/Inconsistencies/Gaps/Effectiveness • Identify areas where new or modified policy may be needed – Operational experience – Customer feedback • Provide feedback to community and make recommendations when appropriate * </quote_page2> > I often take on this role, as well as the devil's advocate to question > what others say. I don't see it as pushing a personal agenda. I have no > personal agenda. It doesn't matter to me personally if the database evolves > or dies. It does matter to the industry and society. I have no employer or > financial interest in how the database evolves. I can look at each issue > and consider how it fits in with that old saying...for the good of the > Internet. > > This is one of the reasons why I've put myself forward again as a chair > for another couple of years. > > Thanks for your much appreciated engagement, imho! and congrates for your selection as Co-chair. > I hope in that time David can spearhead a new generation of WG chairs. > > Congratulations and welcome, Co-chair David! Maybe, raising awareness of the need to participate within your generation-peers, should be considered too...dear David :-) > > Then dinosaurs like myself (and others) can ascend into advisory positions > instead of decision making roles. > > Thanks for continuing to support the community and the DB-WG, in particular. Shalom, --sb. > > Cheers > Denis > > > > On Fri, 9 Jun 2023, 15:37 Randy Bush via db-wg, <db-wg(a)ripe.net> wrote: > >> > Some of my goals as a co-chair would be >> > - To support the moderation of the mailing list and facilitate working >> > group tasks >> > - Promote active discussion, sending summary emails to make the >> > content easier to follow >> > - Perform community outreach to raise awareness of this working group >> > and the policy process >> >> /me likes. simple, but what a chair should be doing. leave personal >> agendas at the door. >> >> randy >> >> [...] > > -- Best Regards ! __ baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure> Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)

1 0

Database Working Group Chair Selection
by William Sylvester 07 Jul '23

07 Jul '23

Fellow working group members, We currently have two slots open, the first is Denis’s term has come to an end. In keeping with our continuity plan to have chairs on a three year rotation offset yearly. The other open slot has two years remaining as a term. We have two candidates currently for these open slots with preferences as indicated; Denis Walker, two year term David Tatlisu, three year term I encourage each candidate to post any statements they wish to make directly to the working group. This notice serves as the candidate announcement and call for discussion. Thanks, William DB-WG Co-Chair Our current chair process is as revised in 2017, as follows; 1) Number of chairs is a minimum of 2 with a maximum of 3. 2) Chair can be removed at any time by consensus. 3) Chair terms are staggered yearly. 4) One chair per year is replaced. 5) Working group selects chair by consensus. 6) The consensus judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and will exclude the co-chair(s) who is the subject of that consensus judgement. 7) Selection process is as follow; 7.1) Interested parties have two weeks to make their interest known via the mailing list, or directly to the Chair/s. 7.2) After two weeks, the Chair/s ensure that all candidates are announced on the mailing list and issue a call for discussion. 7.3) WG members express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. 7.4) Two weeks after the call for discussion, the Chair/s declare a decision, based on mailing list discussion, as they would do for a policy proposal. 8) Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair (or their deputy) whose decision shall be final. 9) In the case more than one chair is up for selection at the same time, the chair with the greatest support will take a multi-year term, the chair with the least support will take the second longest term. Terms will be determined by the number of chairs (3 chairs = 3 year term, 2 chairs = 2 year teams). The intent is to maintain continuity of the working group chairs. So the working group is never left without a chair.

6 8