March 2001 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Summary: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
by Mirjam Kuehne 19 Sep '01

19 Sep '01

Dear LIR-WG, Here is an attempt to summarise the recent discussions on this mailing list regarding possible fixed size assignments. Following a review of the comments, it looks like the majority does not believe that a special assignment policy is needed. Most contributors agreed that there is no need to make a distinction in policy relating to different access methods. All assignments should be made on actual needs and according to the current IP address policies. The comments showed concerns about the administrative procedures required for these kinds of assignments. However, it was felt that these addresses need to be accounted for in some way. A possible way forward would be to initiate discussion surrounding the set of information necessary to justify these assignments while providing an efficient way for the LIRs to provide services to their customers. I realise that I did not touch on every aspect of the discussion but I hope that this is a fair summary in order for you to move forward Looking forward to a continuation of this debate. Best Regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

3 2

Call for agenda items & draft agenda
by Hans Petter Holen 11 Jul '01

11 Jul '01

Dear WG, I would like to bring to your attention the upcoming working group meeting in Bologna, likely to be on Wed May 2nd. Please suggest agenda items that needs to be discussed to the mailinglist. Draft Agenda 1.Admin - scribe, participant list, charter, mailing-lists 2.Agenda 3.RIPE 38 minutes & actions 4.Report from the RIPE NCC Hostmasters by Nurani Nimpuno 5. 17th of May Task force - goal reached or what to do next ? 6. Report from The ASO: AC happenings and GA 7.Closure of the ICANN ad Hoc Group on numbering 8.Election of WG Chair and co-chair Actions from last meeting: 35.4 NCC PGP Key exchange procedure 35.5 NCC Implement PGP for hm 36.5 Chair Assignment window applied on infrastructure 36.6 AP Collect arbitrators 36.7 NCC Keep lir-wg updated on pre RIR address space changes 37.1 WG Further discuss restoring the transparency 37.2 NCC Incorporate IESG/IAB proposal into IPv6 policy 37.3 M17 Work with the RIPE NCC to implement suggestions

1 4

Re: Modifying references to contact info in the RIPE DB
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 24 Jun '01

24 Jun '01

Hi Joao! >If the reference is by name then when I query the DB I will get the list of >persons with that name, right? Right. >Whether the object belongs to the person or not is not going to save this >person from being contacted. From the point of view of the database and the >user querying it, the object belongs to that person. Right >The link is via a name. > >Now we substitute the reference by name with a reference by nic handle >pointing to the same person. >What is the difference? > >ALMOST NONE except that: True, for the case where there is a strict one-to-one mapping, e.g the recursion using the name returns *one* object. What do you suggets to do with the case where the recursion, based on the names, returns a *set* of objects? I can see 2 approaches (at least): - do not perform the handle substitution for that referring object and put it on the list of those requiring human intervention - expand the xxxx-c: list (which? the tech-c:?) to refer to *all* objects, but by ref'ing their handles While human beings are quite clever in selecting the "proper" instance of a person: object (by looking at country, address, email,...) a script might be quite clueless with that respect :-) 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 3

IP Management Tool - Minimum Requirements
by Maldwyn Morris 06 Jun '01

06 Jun '01

Hello everyone, Guy wrote: > > I am officially asking Mal to please repost the > current requirements back up on this list. [...] Happy to oblige. Cheers, Maldwyn Morris Software Manager RIPE NCC -- Hi, Following a presentation of an IP Management Tool by Guy Vegoda at the last RIPE Meeting Tools BOF, interest was expressed in the development of an Open Source version of such a tool and I agreed to use the lirwg list to try and draw up Requirements for this. Hopefully this can be refined into something that we can then begin writing Specifications for. Please remember that these are *Requirements* - i.e. what the users want the tool to do. Please confine remarks to this area and avoid mixing in the *Specifications* - i.e. how those requirements will be met - which we will come to, in good time. It should also be emphasised that we would at this stage like to concentrate on _minimum_ requirements for a simple tool, such that it would be useful to a large number of LIRs. I think we can use these Minimum Requirements to produce something that may or may not include more advanced features as well, knowing that we would at least have covered the basic needs. Comments on this process and the document are most welcome, and we would also like a good name. Thanks to Guy Vegoda, Leo Vegoda and Nigel Titley for their help in drawing up this document, and especially to Guy for presenting his tool. Cheers, Maldwyn Morris Software Manager RIPE NCC -- Minimum Requirements for an IP Management Tool ---------------------------------------------- 0. Introduction Guy Vegoda presented an IP Management Tool at the Tools BOF at RIPE 38 [1]. This document is an attempt to specify the minimum requirements for a similar tool, with the aim of producing an Open Source version for anyone who wants to use it. Below, I address 1. General Points about the project, 2. The Requirements themselves, 3. External Constraint that must be considered, and 4. A list of References. 1. General Points Name: Let's use IPMT ( IP Management Tool ) as a placeholder for now. Users: We will target as users 'The Hostmaster staff of Local Internet Registries which are Customers of the RIPE NCC and who need to manage their IP Allocations and Assignments and the requests for same that they send to the RIPE NCC' [phew]. We will call one of these people a 'LIRHostmaster' and their organisation an 'LIR'. It may also be useful to other people in other organisations to do other things, but that will not influence the requirements. Open Source: We will release this software under the LGPL licence [2]. We use this instead of GPL [3] because this means we will remain able to using non-GPL'ed libraries, should that prove necessary. The RIPE NCC is happy to support this project, but of course its Open Source nature means anyone else can use the code to begin their own Open Source project. We are also happy about that. IPV6: We would be foolish not to consider the possibility of using this tool for managing IPV6 addresses and writing it such that this is possible, but we think it will be useful even if it does not and do not consider IPV6 support a requirement. 2. Requirements General functionality: IPMT should provide the LIRHostmasters with list, create, update, and delete access to information regarding their LIR's IPV4 allocations. These actions must be undoable where necessary. Basic validity checks will be performed on all input. IPMT should provide the LIRHostmasters with list, create, update, and delete access to information regarding their LIR's IPV4 assignments. These actions must be undoable where necessary. Basic validity checks will be performed on all input. IPMT should allow the LIRHostmasters to receive requests for IPV4 assignments from the customers of their LIR and allow them to process them. IPMT should allow LIRHostmasters to send well-formatted email requests for new IPv4 assignments to the RIPE NCC and allow the LIRHostmasters to receive and process responses from the RIPE NCC. IPMT should allow LIRHostmasters to send well-formatted email requests for new IPv4 allocations to the RIPE NCC and allow the LIRHostmasters to receive and process responses from the RIPE NCC. User Interface: LIRHostmasters should be able to conveniently access IPMT functions from a wide range of Desktop Operating Systems, possibly including non-modern, non-Unix-like ones. A GUI interface is the minimal acceptable convenience level. A less-convenient interface to IPMT for more complex functions and administration is acceptable. 3. External constraints The RIPE NCC only accepts requests for new IPv4 Assignments and Allocations via email to hostmaster(a)ripe.net and replies only via email [4]. IPV4 Assignment requests must be in RIPE 141 format [5]. Requests for new IPV4 Allocations have no special format. LIRHostmasters handle customer requests for Assignments via telephone, email and web pages. IPMT must have access to the RIPE DB [6] or a local mirror thereof. 4. References [1] http://www/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-38/index.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html [3] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html [4] http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/status.html [5] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-141.html [6] http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/

3 2

Management of the working group
by Hans Petter Holen 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

Dear lir-wg, as just expressed at the wg meeting, I think it is appropriate to suggest some formalities for the wg to elect its chairs. My proposal is as following: 1) Open nominations on the lir-wg mailinglist 2) Optional discussion and support statements 3) Election of chair and 1-2 co chairs at the next lir-wg meeting in Bologna. 3b) The election to be performed either open ballot or by secret ballot if demanded by one or more participants at the meeting 3c) The election to be confirmed by consensus by the wg after the election result have been duly counted by a counting team from the audience. 4) That we perform such an election annualy to ensure the community support to the wg chairs. As the meeting expressed support towards such an idea, I would like to hear the opinions of the wg on theese matters before proceeding. Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen lir-wg Chair

6 10

RE: Another issue related to the migration
by Lu, Ping 03 Apr '01

03 Apr '01

Andrei, The existing ripe2rpsl tool will automatically translate "AS-" to "ASN-" for the aut-num object and I think "ASN-" is more meaningful than "AS_". Best Regards. Ping Lu Cable & Wireless Global Network Tools and Analysis Group, USA W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrei Robachevsky [mailto:andrei@ripe.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 11:10 AM > To: db-wg(a)ripe.net; routing-wg(a)ripe.net; Migration TF; lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Another issue related to the migration > > > Dear Colleagues, > > [Apologies for duplicate messages] > > One issue related to RIPE-181 to RPSL migration escaped our > attention and has > not been discussed. It is related to reserved prefixes that > cannot appear in > object names according to RPSL specification (RFC2622) which says: > > "Names starting with certain prefixes are reserved for > certain object types. > Names starting with "as-" are reserved for as set names. > Names starting with > "rs-" are reserved for route set names. Names starting with > "rtrs-" are > reserved for router set names. Names starting with "fltr-" > are reserved for > filter set names. Names starting with "prng-" are reserved > for peering set > names." > > Unfortunately "as-name:" attribute is an object name in RPSL > and we have 133 > aut-num objects with as-name starting with reserved 'AS-' prefix. > > Our suggestion how to deal with these objects is: > > 1. Send a message to the maintainers of these objects asking > them to change the > name to avoid conflict with RPSL specification. > 2. Give two-week notice period after which ripe-dbm will > convert non compliant > as-names using the following mapping: AS-ASNAME -> AS_ASNAME. > > This is more a "cosmetic" change as as-name is not even a > lookup key in the RIPE > Database. > > Your comments and suggestions are appreciated. > > Best regards, > > > Andrei Robachevsky > DB Group Manager > RIPE NCC >

2 1

RIPE Database Software V3.0 compliance test.
by DB-News 30 Mar '01

30 Mar '01

Dear Colleagues, If you have software that works with RIPE Database Software, then you should make sure that it works with Version 3.0, which will be put into production next month. Compliance tests are available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/db/rpsl/usercl.html More information about Version 3.0 of the RIPE Database Software and how it will affect you is available at: http://www.ripe.net/rpsl/ If you have any questions, please contact <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net>. Regards, A. M. R. Magee -------------- Database Group RIPE NCC

1 0

RE: Another issue related to the migration
by Hallgren, Michael 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Hi, > > > Dear Colleagues, [...] > > Our suggestion how to deal with these objects is: > > 1. Send a message to the maintainers of these objects asking > them to change the > name to avoid conflict with RPSL specification. > 2. Give two-week notice period after which ripe-dbm will > convert non compliant > as-names using the following mapping: AS-ASNAME -> AS_ASNAME. > > This is more a "cosmetic" change as as-name is not even a > lookup key in the RIPE > Database. Yes. Agree. Been hinting customers to trash/modify such names prior to migration date - not knowing whether or not such conflict would be treated auto-magically... Regards Michael > > Your comments and suggestions are appreciated. > > Best regards, > > > Andrei Robachevsky > DB Group Manager > RIPE NCC > -- Michael Hallgren, Eng., Teleglobe, MH2198-RIPE

1 0

Another issue related to the migration
by Andrei Robachevsky 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

Dear Colleagues, [Apologies for duplicate messages] One issue related to RIPE-181 to RPSL migration escaped our attention and has not been discussed. It is related to reserved prefixes that cannot appear in object names according to RPSL specification (RFC2622) which says: "Names starting with certain prefixes are reserved for certain object types. Names starting with "as-" are reserved for as set names. Names starting with "rs-" are reserved for route set names. Names starting with "rtrs-" are reserved for router set names. Names starting with "fltr-" are reserved for filter set names. Names starting with "prng-" are reserved for peering set names." Unfortunately "as-name:" attribute is an object name in RPSL and we have 133 aut-num objects with as-name starting with reserved 'AS-' prefix. Our suggestion how to deal with these objects is: 1. Send a message to the maintainers of these objects asking them to change the name to avoid conflict with RPSL specification. 2. Give two-week notice period after which ripe-dbm will convert non compliant as-names using the following mapping: AS-ASNAME -> AS_ASNAME. This is more a "cosmetic" change as as-name is not even a lookup key in the RIPE Database. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated. Best regards, Andrei Robachevsky DB Group Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: New Proposal
by Janos Zsako 29 Mar '01

29 Mar '01

> From owner-lir-wg(a)ripe.net Thu Mar 29 14:42:22 2001 > From: Stephen Burley <stephenb(a)uk.uu.net> Stephen, > I would like to here your comments on the following proposal. After > being in an audit and getting a list as long as my arm of broken objects > in the DB it turned out that the majority of the objects where pre RIPE > and not subject to the same checks. I therefore propose that all > inetnums without a status (being pre-RIPE there is no status) should be > marked with a new status of PR (Pre RIPE) and therefore be ignored by an > audit tool. Also all other objects prior to ripe should be flagged so as > to be ingnored in an audit, making it much easier to see what really > needs fixing. I think the idea of marking such inetnums is very good. I am just wondering whether "no status" really means "pre RIPE". I suspect it is not the case, as Daniel's document was discussed on the mailing list in May 1995 (and is dated 30 June 0995), while RIPE NCC did perform allocations much earlier as far as I remember. So my point is that the term "pre RIPE" may be misleading. What about "status: UK"? (UK for UnKnown :)) ) Janos

4 3