- routing-wg - mailman.ripe.net

BGP4/CIDR/aggregation presentations
by asp＠uunet.uu.net 11 Feb '94

11 Feb '94

These are some notes that I made as I was preparing my presentations for the RegTechs meeting in San Diego Jan31/Feb 1. I have revised them (some what) in light of some of the conversations & presentations made at the RegTechs meeting. There are undoubtably holes & inaccuracies in these notes; please correct any that you see. --asp(a)uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan) BGP4 deployment status There are not that many folks that have deployed BGP4 yet. This is not good. So far, AlterNet, Ebone, SprintLink, ICMnet, EUnet, TIPnet, PIPEX, and AS1133 (CERN) have deployed BGP4 (that I know of). ANS is behind their announced schedule. This list is incomplete (I sure hope that there are other folks out there that are running BGP4 that I do not know of). Europe seems to be further ahead than the US (I have heard that a number of European networks are using BGP4; but I don't have a list). Not all of these folks are running BGP4 between them yet - e.g.: the AlterNet/AS1133 link is still BGP3. People are not making public their BGP4 deployment plans, nor are they making their routing plans public (ala the RIPE routing registry database). Without this data, it is really hard to know when or if we can announce CIDR routes safely. There are already CIDR-routes (non A/B/C routes) that are being announced in the Internet today. When I last checked (Sunday 1/30/94), all but one of the more specific routes (the A/B/C nets) were also being announced. BGP4 is real; BGP4 works; people need to deploy it; people need to deploy it now. We still don't know all of the folks that need to deploy BGP4. We still don't know what will break if CIDR routes are used. Implementation status: Cisco code is working & deployed in most of the nets that are running BGP4. Gated code is working & deployed on AS 1133. 3com code is working on the BGP4 test net. I don't know the status of any other code. Why is it so important that we get BGP4 & CIDR working & working now? Routing table growth. 16 Meg ciscos may only be able to support 25K-30K routes. [The jury is still out on this one; cisco is continuing to improve their code to put more routes into the same amount of memory. cisco is also looking at 64 Meg routers.] Peter Lothburg took a look at his routers (Ebone & ICMnet) and found that he could only support approx 18K routes total! On ciscos (at least), the number of routes that you can support depends on how much free memory you have - memory is used for the forwarding table, the routing table, and for updates (and other things). The more destinations you see the larger your forwarding table is - so central routers (like ICMnet & Ebone) will have more memory used for forwarding tables. Routing table size is the total number of routes you have plus how many different paths you have to each of those routes (the Ebone and ICMnet see nearly every route with something like 5 paths). Routing updates use memory for both incoming updates from your peers (eBGP & iBGP) and for outgoing updates (most notably for iBGP peers - since every incoming update from an eBGP peer is (typically) sent to every iBGP peer). The more routing updates you get (the more unstable the overall network is), the more memory you will use. Central routes tend to see lots more updates (this is not entirely true since cisco's BGP4 code has some dampening of updates - they delay forwarding updates for a short while, so that if a net goes down & then back up fairly quickly, you may not see any update at all downstream). When ciscos start running out of memory, they try to conserve memory by delaying processing of incoming updates and sending of outgoing updates (rather than just hitting the wall & tipping over). This means that routing may take longer to stablize & may not ever stablize as things get really bad. In any case, Peter's routers have about 1.9 Meg free today; AlterNet routers have approx 4 Meg free - the same number of total routes, but different routing policy and (probably) fewer destinations, updates, and paths. The ANS ENSSs may only be able to support 25K routes. [ANS thinks that they can up this by another 5K routes to a total of 30K.] We are now at 16,788 routes (as of 1/30/94 17:00 EST). [17,410 as of 2/11/94, 14:00 EST.] I did some analysis of routing table growth from a number of different angles, and all pointed to running out of memory by mid summer (unless we do something). [This used 25K as the drop dead date - we should be hitting 18K in about 1.5-2 weeks.] The growth rate seems to be 1000 net every 3 weeks. [I looked at routing table sizes & growth over the last few months; also at current doubling time (9 months; ref ALE working group); also at free memory usage in my routers. All of my projections came out with approx the same drop dead date of mid summer. I also did not leave any memory for things like packets, so my dates are overly optimistic.] [I also looked at some data provided by Merit (their active net counts), and their projections agree very closely with mine - approx mid summer for 25K routes and 1000 nets every 3 weeks.] We need to attack the routing table size on a number of fronts - router vendor code changes (to use less memory per route), router hardware changes (to add more memory), changes in routing policies (things like more use of default routes & suboptimal routing), newer routing protocols (that do not need full routing tables on a large number of routers; things like route servers), and BGP4/CIDR deployment. The one that seems to be the easiest & quickest to deploy is BGP4/CIDR. The problem is that if I CIDRize my own routes, I can save about 1000 routes in my own tables (and push death off by maybe a month or so). I need you to CIDRize your routes to save space in my routing tables. I could also proxy aggregate your routes, but proxy aggregation is hard. If I hear your routes via several possible paths, and if the same aggregation is not done in the same way on all of the paths, then traffic may go over suboptimal paths (since traffic always takes a more specific route over a less specific route). Proxy aggregation is doubly hard, if I don't know about all of the possible paths that I could hear your routes over. [There was some discussion about where it was safe (or safer) to do proxy aggregation - basically it all boils down to knowing the (local) topology and lots of communication between the parties involved.] This gets to routing registries. People have to publish their routing policies in some public place so that other people can look at these policies and try to figure out if some change that they are contemplating (like announcing CIDR routes) will cause problems elsewhere in the Internet. These routing policies need to be in some common format, so that tools can use them. The only such database that I know of is the RIPE database. People should use this. Two folks from RIPE will be giving a talk on this later (Daniel Karrenburg & Tony Bates). [Merit will also be doing a routing policy database & is going to coordinate with the RIPE folks. The Merit & RIPE folks should be able to say more on this.] A bit more on proxy aggregation. If you know the local topology well enough, and if there is communications & coordinations among the people involved, you can do proxy aggregation safely. A couple of examples: BGP4 network 'B' connects to non-BGP4 stub network 'S'. S has no other connections to the rest of the world. B --- S B can do proxy aggregation of S's nets. [Note that B can probably proxy aggregate w/o even talking to S, but this is probably a bad idea.] BGP4 network 'B' connects to non-BGP4 network 'S'. 'S' has just one other connection to non-BGP4 network 'T'. T has no other connections to the rest of the world. B --- S --- T B can do proxy aggregation of S's and T's nets. BGP4 network 'A' connects to non-BGP4 network 'S'. BGP4 network 'B' connects to non-BGP4 network 'S'. S has no other connections to the rest of the world. A --- S --- B A & B can do proxy aggregation of S's nets. Note that A and B need to do the *same* proxy aggregation, or things may not work (routing follows the most specific route). There are other examples; they all depend on complete knowledge of the (local) topology and coordination between all of the parties involved. Obviously as the topology gets more complex, and the number of parties grows, this gets to be a harder & harder problem. Some of the conclusions on deployment of BGP4/CIDR People are deploying BGP4; the code seems to be working just fine. People are going to be announcing CIDR routes and doing proxy aggregation fairly shortly (like w/in the next week or so). Partially this is a matter of self defense, so that routers don't tip over. It looks like things will work, if there is a large enough BGP4 core, and if people are either part of the BGP4 core or have a default route to the BGP4 core, or have a default route to someone who has a default route to the BGP4 core (basically a path of defaults, all going towards the BGP4 core). I think that the sites that are currently doing BGP4 form a large enough core for things to work. If ANS can get things working to join the BGP4 core, then things will be better; however ANS already has code deployed that can use a default route (most likely to AS1133). It would also be very useful for the CIX-West routers to be part of the BGP4 core. I also think that everyone either is already part of the BGP4 or has a default route towards it. This point was brought up at the RegTechs meeting, and no one voiced any objections. So, I think (& hope) that we are in (more-or-less) good shape. The next step: publish your plans for BGP4 and CIDR! -- Jean-Michel

1 0

New Document available: ripe-108
by RIPE NCC Document Annoucement Service 11 Feb '94

11 Feb '94

New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised/new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-108 Title: Support of Guarded fields within the RIPE Database Author: Tony Bates Date: 11 February 1994 Format: PS=45180 TXT=18019 bytes Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Old: Short content description ------------------------- This document describes an overview of the RIPE database attributes which are guarded, the procedure for updating these guarded attri- butes and the general use of "guarded" fields within the RIPE data- base. FTP Access ---------- All RIPE documents and Internet RFC`s are available via anonymous FTP from host ftp.ripe.net. Type "ftp ftp.ripe.net". Login with username "anonymous" supplying your email address as the password. After logging in, type "cd ripe/docs/ripe-docs" followed by the command "get filename". The relevant filenames for this document are: ripe-108.txt for the ASCII version ripe-108.ps for the PostScript version Electronic Mail Retrieval of Documents -------------------------------------- Documents can also be retrieved from the RIPE document store using a mail server program. For more information on how to use the program, send email to: mail-server(a)ripe.net with "send HELP" in the body text. RIPE NCC Interactive Information Server --------------------------------------- Type "telnet info.ripe.net". This is a menu driven service allows the document store to be browsed. After reading documents you are prompted as to whether you would like to receive an email copy of the document you have just read. If you would, you simply enter your email address and the document will be mailed to you. Below are details of alternative methods of access. Gopher Access ------------- The same documents are available via a "gopher" server at "gopher gopher.ripe.net". WAIS Access ----------- There is also a "WAIS" server at wais.ripe.net, where there is a WAIS index for RIPE documents "ripe-docs.src" WWW Access ---------- For those who wish to add this home page at the RIPE NCC to their own customized home pages, it can be accessed as: http://www.ripe.net MIME Mail Reader ---------------- Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant Mail Reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the RIPE document. SEND ripe/docs/ripe-docs/ripe-108.txt

1 0

Routing WG minutes 9401
by jimi＠dxcoms.cern.ch 04 Feb '94

04 Feb '94

Here are the draft minutes of the Routing WG meeting in Amsterdam. Comments welcome, -- Jean-Michel ---------------------------------------------------- RIPE Routing-WG Draft Minutes Amsterdam, Tuesday January 25th Minutes: Jean-Michel Jouanigot, Gilles Farrache (scribe) 0. Previous minutes, agenda. The previous minutes and the agenda were approved. Gilles Farrache volunteers as a scribe. 1. Ripe-81 1.1 Introduction; AS registration statistics (NCC) Tony Bates presented briefly some statistics about the Ripe-81 objects registration in the RIPE database during the plenary session. Almost 70% of the ASes in Europe are now registered. This ongoing effort should continue, and AS guardians are encouraged to check that their routing policies are well registered and kept up-to-date. Ripe-81 seem now to be well accepted within the community. 1.2 Guarded attributes (NCC) 1.2.1 Implementation (discussion, hopefully agreement) Marten Terpstra presented the implementation of the Guarded attributes in the RIPE database. The implementation was agreed. For more details, see "Support of Guarded fields within the RIPE Database", Final Draft. This document can be obtained from the RIPE NCC, and will soon be registered as a RIPE document. AS objects cannot be registered using the 'auto-dbm(a)ripe.net' automatic update procedure. These objects have to be sent to 'ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net'. When 'inetnum' object is deleted, and this network is tagged with an AS, the guardian of this AS receives a notification. This new procedures should be operational beginning of February. 1.2.2 Block splitting (Marten), discussion At the last Working Group meeting, an agreement was reached concerning 'block splitting': when one network within a block is tagged with an AS or a community, the block has to be split, and the owner of this object notified. Daniel Karrenberg expressed some concerns about this, arguing that the Database should not modify an object since the users of the database (Local Registries) may have problem to follow up these modifications. Since no better solution was found, it was agreed to confirm this decision, unless a better solution is found by the Database Working group. 1.3 Use of Ripe-81; conversion of Ripe-60 (reminder, brief) The action on Jean-Michel Jouanigot to coordinate this migration is kept open: the migration is postponed to February, when all the necessary tools in the RIPE database concerning guarded objects are implemented. 1.4 Ripe-81 enhancements A new version of the Ripe-81 document, including some extensions, was sent out on the working group list, titled 'RIPE-81++'. 1.4.1 DMZ (Description of Inter-AS Networks in the RIPE Routing Registry" (ptraceroute issue). Status (brief) This extension, proposed by Daniel Karrenberg some time ago, is already integrated in RIPE-81++, and implemented in the RIPE database by the PRIDE Project. It is now commonly used. 1.4.2 Colouring, proposal, discussion Jean-Michel Jouanigot presented a few slides explaining this new extension. Details about colouring can be found in Ripe-81++; the principles are: o Currently: 1 policy per AS; Variations = Communities o Colours : small variations within one AS; hints for CIDR aggregation; avoid network based lists o Implementation: Path attribute (BGP); local to an AS; associated with communities. This new idea was discussed, and a series of clarifications were made: o There is some kind of overlap between colours and communities, but a colour is local to an AS, and the colour information is set at the source of the network announcement, and not in the receiver of this route (network based lists based on communities). o Someone using colours for routing should trust the remote AS for colouring his networks properly when they leave its AS. o One can use both mechanisms (colours and communities) to express routing policies. It is therefore proposed to extent Ripe-81 so that it can support: as-in: AS1234 10 COM1, where COM1 is a community. o It is proposed to limit the number of colours to 16 per AS, since it is the number of bits used in the BGP path attribute today. It was observed that the latest draft of BGP4 dropped the BGP path attribute. The attendees of the coming IETF from RIPE should propose to restore it. o A network can be marked with several colours. 1.5 Ripe-81 limitations and pending issues 1.5.1 AS macros (Ripe-81 proposal), examples, discussion The idea of AS macro was already described in the Ripe-81 original document. It was agreed to accept the AS macros principle, include it in Ripe-81++ and ask the Ripe NCC to implement it. Action: RIPE NCC, to implement the AS macros 1.5.2 Default route representation (Blasco), what can't we represent ? Antonio Blaco Bonito presented his concerns about default route expression in Ripe-81 format. Jean-Michel Jouanigot presented several configurations were the routing policies can't be expressed in RIPE-81 format, since Ripe-81 does not understand the notion of AS Path. There was a long and well debated discussion about the idea of AS Path in Ripe-81. This is a known limitation of the syntax, and network operators are sometime not able to express the policies they are implementing. Such a limitation prevents Ripe-81 to be used to generate Router configurations. Two different approaches were proposed: a) Daniel Karrenberg: Add an 'advice' in the AS object, something which could express "I don't want to cross AS X". b) Laurent Joncheray: Include the AS Path concept in Ripe-81. Solution (a) goes along with RIPE-81 principles: keep it simple. But up to what point can we go in this direction ? What's the purpose of RIPE-81 if we can't generate the router configurations out of the database ? Solution (b) implies that the network topology would tied with the policies, and it may be difficult to keep the Routing policies coherent inside the database. Macros could possibly help. Since no consensus was reached, it was decided to investigate further in both directions: Action on Daniel Karrenberg: Write down a proposal for solution (a) Action on Laurent Joncheray: Write down a proposal for solution (b) 1.5.3 Inter-AS Local Information, discussion This extension, as well as the action attached to it (Peter Lothberg), was dropped. 2. Closing, AOB A FAQ on CIDR by Daniele Vannozzi was sent to the Working Group mailing list. This document was unanimously recognized as good and it was advised to be proposed as an RFC. Comments on this documents should be sent to Daniele Vannozzi, with copy to the list. The RIPE NCC will make the document available. Since RIPE is studying a possible reorganization of its working groups, the chairman asked the participants if new topics should be dealt with or if the scope/charter of the group should be changed. The following was suggested: o CIDR and Aggregation should become a high priority of the group o BGP4/IDPR follow on o The group should avoid, as much as possible, overlapping interest with other RIPE working groups, especially with the Database working group and the EEPG. ----------------------------

1 0

Guarded Attributes (IMPORTANT)
by Marten Terpstra 03 Feb '94

03 Feb '94

[Apologies for wide distribution, think it is important though] Folks, Please find below a slightly updated version of the guarded attribute procedure document. For those of you who manage an AS, please not that starting coming Monday, the aut-sys field in the network object will become guarded, and can only be updated thru the procedure described below. We have created accounts for all ASes we currently see routed in Europe, and if you do not have your account yet, please come and get it as soon as possible and check out the files we have created for you. Please send requests for these accounts to <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net>. Also if you know some of your AS neighbors have not got their account yet, and are perhaps not on any of these lists, pass this message. If you have questions, send them to ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net as well, or directly to me. -Marten Support of Guarded fields within the RIPE Database * FINAL DRAFT * Tony Bates Document-ID: ripe-1nn 1. Introduction The RIPE database contains several significant attributes which make it well suited for use as part of operational procedures and confi- guration. Most significantly are the attributes which make up the RIPE Routing Registry (RR) as specified in RIPE-81 [1][2], namely the "aut-sys" and "comm-list" attributes. For these attributes to be of use to service providers they must be: o Properly authorised. o Efficient for both maintainers of the attributes and the main- tainers of the whole database. This document describes an overview of the RIPE database attributes which are guarded, the procedure for updating these guarded attri- butes and the general use of "guarded" fields within the RIPE data- base. 2. The Database Guarded Attributes All the guarded attributes currently supported in the RIPE database are contained within the "inetnum" or network object. However, the association corresponds to their relevant guarded database objects. If we look at a simple example this becomes clear: inetnum: 192.87.45.0 netname: RIPE-NCC descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre descr: Amsterdam, Netherlands country: NL admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Marten Terpstra connect: RIPE NSF WCW ripe-1nn.txt February 3, 1994 - 2 - aut-sys: AS1104 comm-list: SURFNET ias-int: 192.87.45.80 AS1104 ias-int: 192.87.45.6 AS2122 ias-int: 192.87.45.254 AS2600 rev-srv: ns.ripe.net rev-srv: ns.eu.net notify: ops(a)ripe.net changed: tony(a)ripe.net 940110 source: RIPE This shows that the RIPE-NCC network belongs to autonomous system 1104 and is in a community known as SURFNET. This is valuable infor- mation that could easily be used for example for routing policy pur- poses (as well as other operational uses). Currently support for the following set of guarded attributes is implemented: aut-sys The "aut-sys" attribute has a direct mapping to "aut-num" objects as defined in RIPE-81. That is the Autonomous System (AS) that the network number is a part of. As defined in RIPE- 81, a network can only belong to one AS and hence the "aut-sys" attribute can only contain one AS number. The syntax of the "aut-sys" attribute is: AS<positive integer between 1 and 65535> (1). i.e. AS1104 comm-list The "comm-list" attribute has a direct mapping to "community" objects as defined in RIPE-81. A network can belong to more than one community. The syntax of "comm-list" is: Multiple text strings which cannot start with "AS" or any of the <routing policy expression> KEYWORDS defined in RIPE-81. routpr-l (2) The "routpr-l" attribute has a direct mapping to "rout-pr" objects as defined in RIPE-60 [4]. Networks can belong to more than one routing privilege. The list of networks within a rout- ing privilege represents the group of networks accepted/allowed by a set of routers described by the information in the "rout- pr" object. The syntax for "routpr-l" is as follows: _________________________ (1) This represents a change from RIPE-50 [3] where the "aut-sys" attribute was defined to be a positive integer only, not containing the string "AS" at the start. This change has been made to be consistent with the "aut-num" object syntax. ripe-1nn.txt February 3, 1994 - 3 - Multiple text strings representing the routing privilege. bdrygw-l The "bdrygw-l" attribute has a direct mapping to "bdry-gw" objects as defined in RIPE-60 [4]. Networks can belong to more than one boundary gateway. The list of networks within a boun- dary gateway represents the group of networks advertised by a set of routers described by the information in the "bdry-gw" object. The syntax for "bdrygw-l" is as follows: Multiple text strings representing the boundary gateways iden- tification. As these attributes are tightly coupled to their associated objects it makes sense for these attributes to be updated not by the network maintainer but by the maintainer of the referenced object(s). The basic premise behind this is that these attributes should be used for various operational procedures such as setting routing policy, accounting and so on. For these attributes to be used by network operators for day to day operations they need to be guarded in such a way that can be trusted and are guaranteed to be unique - with any conflicts quickly and easily resolved. The procedure for achieving this is detailed below. 3. The Basic Procedure For each of the guarded attributes detailed above, a list of all networks having this attribute is kept separately from the general database itself. These lists (also called `guarded files') will be maintained and be served as the `only' source of membership informa- tion used in the database. Normal database updates `never' change these attributes. If an update includes such an attribute and a discrepancy between the values in the update and those in the data- base is found, a diagnostic message will be sent to the originator of the update and the guarded value(s) will not be affected. The attributes as defined in these files are incorporated in the data- base once a day. To ensure proper control and authorisation, these lists will be maintained at the RIPE NCC on the same machine that contains the RIPE database. The "guardians" of the corresponding database objects will have to maintain their own guarded files. The guardians are provided with individually assigned login accounts at the RIPE NCC. The guardians can themselves decide in what manner they want to update their file. The NCC will offer interactive logins, ftp logins or any other means that might be deemed useful. _________________________ (2) It should be noted that both "routpr-l" and "bdrygw-l" attributes have been agreed to be phased out in preference of the "aut-sys" and "comm-list" attri- butes as soon as the `guarded field' mechanism is in place. ripe-1nn.txt February 3, 1994 - 4 - 3.1. Some Details As stated each guardian will be issued with an account on the cen- tral NCC machine known as `guardian.ripe.net'. This account will contain a `restricted' environment which will allow the guardian of the relevant object to update their associated guardian file (3). Wherever possible the account name issued to the guardian will be the same as the object name. For example, the guardian of the AS1104 aut-num object will receive an account known as "AS1104". With each guardian account the corresponding file will be parsed at each update run (once a day). This file will contain the list on networks associated with the object. See appendix A for details of the format and syntax of the guardian files. A tool will also be provided within the restricted environment to syntax check the guarded file to avoid against possible typos and errors. With each account, an electronic mail address (this is a mandatory attribute for all guarded objects) will be used by the NCC and data- base software. To make this flexible for the guardian a ".forward" file with the account which can be change when required. This will mean mail sent to <guardian-name(a)guardian.ripe.net> will go the to correct guardian. 3.2. How does it work ? For each of the guarded files found on `guardian.ripe.net' the data- base software will load any guarded attribute value(s) for the net- work object(s) listed in the guarded file. This will take place at the same time as the database is garbage collected (currently at 0500 MET). If a conflict is found (i.e if more than one entry exists for an attribute which can only contain one entry, currently only "aut-sys" contains this property), the current value will remain unchanged and all guardians involved in the conflict will be sent an electronic mail message informing them of the conflict. See Appendix B for an example. If no conflict is found the attribute will be updated with the guarded value. Correspondingly, to remove a guarded attribute just remove the net- work entry from the relevant guarded file and it will be deleted at the next update run. To be notified of this delete the "notify" attribute should be used. _________________________ (3) As stated, the mechanism for updating the guardi- an file will initially be by interactive login or file transfer. However, this doesn't preclude other mechan- isms in the future. ripe-1nn.txt February 3, 1994 - 5 - If a guardian file contains an entry which is not in the database then the guardian will be notified as part of the conflict handling procedure. If an update is sent to the database software using another mechan- ism (i.e. mail to auto-dbm(a)ripe.net) that contains a guarded attri- bute, this will not be allowed to change the guarded attribute. If the value of the attribute is the same as what is currently registered in the database then no warnings will be given. However, if the update contains a value for a guarded attribute that is dif- ferent to that registered in the database, a warning will be sent to the originator and the guarded value will remain unchanged. Any changes of other (unguarded) fields in the update will be checked for syntactic correctness and if they pass will go through to the database irrespective of any conflicts for the guarded fields. When through the normal database update procedure an object with guarded attributes is deleted, the guardians of these guarded attri- butes will be notified of this deletion. Only deletions will be notified in this way to guardians. For normal changes the "notify" attribute of the database should be used. Although the guarded process will run once a day as part of the database garbage collection procedure it will also be possible to, "on request to the NCC", run an emergency guarded update process for a particular guarded object. To have complete guardian accounts removed from the NCC machine, and thus all references to this guarded value, please contact the RIPE NCC at <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net>. Removing an account and the guardian file that goes with it means that this guarded value will not be added any longer to any of the objects in the database. 4. Getting it started As this is a new (and much needed, especially for the "aut-sys" attribute) mechanism, a degree of `bootstrapping' is needed to make it easier for network providers and IRs to transition to using the guarded file procedure. The NCC has built an automated generation scheme for attributes that are known to be in use (currently, this means AS numbers). For all the AS numbers seen to be routed in Europe, accounts for the guardians have already been put in place having the guardian's mailbox point to a mailbox at the RIPE NCC. For these ASs currently guarded files are generated on a daily basis by analyzing European full routing tables. This means there could (and almost certainly will) be some conflicts within the generated guardian files. As soon as the account is handed over, the auto-generation for that guardian account stops and the mailbox is changed to the correct guardian mailbox. Guardians can of course make use of the auto- generated guarded files if they wish to check against their own records. From the moment of `hand-over' it is now the guardians responsibility to make sure their associated network(s) get the ripe-1nn.txt February 3, 1994 - 6 - correct guarded attributes by listing them in the guarded files. The advantage of having this `bootstrap' method is that it will allow population of the guarded "aut-sys" attribute to take place immediately this functionality is enabled in the RIPE database software. It also acts as an incentive for networks operators and local IR's to transition to the guarded file procedure as soon as possible. 5. Conclusion The update procedure as detailed above has the following advantages: o Authorisation of adding/deleting is guaranteed. o No need for mailing back and forth of authorisation messages. o Simple procedure for both database maintainers and guardians. o Guardians keep full control of their attribute. It allows for the addition of any number of guarded attributes in the future. It describes a simple but effective procedure for main- taining the guarded files whilst not precluding alternate mechanisms in the future. 6. References [1] Bates, T., Jouanigot, J-M., Karrenberg, D., Lothberg, P., Terpstra, M., "Representation of IP Routing Policies in the RIPE Database", RIPE-81, February 1993. [2] Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., "Description of Inter-AS Networks in the RIPE Routing Registry", RIPE-103, December 1993. [3] Karrenberg, D., "RIPE Database Template for Networks", RIPE-50, April 1992. [4] J.-M. Jouanigot, "Policy based routing within RIPE", May 1992. ripe-1nn.txt February 3, 1994 - 7 - Appendix A - Format of Guardian Files. We propose to keep the file format as simple as possible. The name of the file is identical to the name of guarded object. The format used within the file is kept simple. It allows lines to be either comments or the actual object entry that is to be guarded. A comment must contain either a semi-colon (;) or hash (#) at the beginning of the comment line. The object name entries must be exactly the same as they are in the database. Currently, the only object containing guarded attributes is the "inetnum" object so the file can contain either the `well-known' dotted quad network notation or RIPE dotted quad range notation. Here is a simple example of what the AS1104 guarded file would look like. The file would be stored in the home directory of the AS1104 account on guardian.ripe.net and be called AS1104 (told you it was simple). It would contain something like the following: # # File : AS1104 # ; An alternate comment format ; ; This file was updated jan.dijkstra(a)gouda.nl ; on 940109 ; 192.16.183.0 192.16.185.0 - 192.16.186.0 192.16.194.0 192.16.199.0 192.87.45.0 Empty lines in the file are also ignored but you are encouraged to keep the file as concise as possible. As stated above, a tool known as `checkguard' will be available to make it simple to check the syntax of the guarded file. ripe-1nn.txt February 3, 1994 - 8 - Appendix B - Example of conflict handling If a conflict occurs (e.g. by listing the same network number in more han one AS guarded file), then each of the guardians involved will be notified on the conflict by electronic mail. Let's look at a simple example. Suppose the guardians for AS1104 and AS2122 update their relevant guardian files and create a conflict by having the same network in them. For this example he network in question is "192.16.183.0". Here is the AS1104 guardian file: # 192.16.183.0 192.16.185.0 192.16.186.0 192.16.194.0 192.16.199.0 192.87.45.0 And here is the AS2122 guardian file: # 192.16.183.0 193.0.0.0 - 193.0.7.0 As you can see "192.16.183.0 exists in both files. At update time the following mails are generated. Firstly, to the guardian of AS2122. Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 13:22:43 +0100 Message-Id: <9401141222.AA07125(a)ns.ripe.net> From: RIPE Database Conflict Handler <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net> Subject: Guarded attributes conflicts found To: as2122(a)ripe.net Dear Guardian, One or more conflicts have been found regarding guarded attributes in the RIPE database. Some of the conflicts concern the guarded values you are a guardian for. Please verify and correct the conflicts below. The guarded values for objects below have been set to the value they had in the database before this guarded attributes run. Kind Regards, RIPE Database Conflict Department ------ "192.16.183.0" also appears in guardian files: AS1104 And similarly to the AS1104 guardian. ripe-1nn.txt February 3, 1994 - 9 - Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 13:22:42 +0100 Message-Id: <9401141222.AA07121(a)ns.ripe.net> From: RIPE Database Conflict Handler <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net> Subject: Guarded attributes conflicts found To: as1104(a)ripe.net Dear Guardian, One or more conflicts have been found regarding guarded attributes in the RIPE database. Some of the conflicts concern the guarded values you are a guardian for. Please verify and correct the conflicts below. The guarded values for objects below have been set to the value they had in the database before this guarded attributes run. Kind Regards, RIPE Database Conflict Department ------ "192.16.183.0" also appears in guardian files: AS2122 >From this you can see conflict can be quickly and easily resolved, assuming good collaboration between the guardians. The existing database entry will of course not be changed with regard to the guarded attribute) as long as there exists a conflict. ripe-1nn.txt February 3, 1994

1 0

Draft minutes 17th RIPE meeting: DB-WG
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 02 Feb '94

02 Feb '94

Dear all, this is the draft minutes of the Database-WG meeting(s) at the 17th RIPE meeting. Any input and comments welcome, especially from those being affected by these things in one way or the other :-). Best regards, Wilfried. -------------------- start of draft minutes -------------------- 17th RIPE Meeting: Draft minutes for the DB-Working-Group meeting 25.1.1993, Amsterdam. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Due to the scheduling (and the un-avoidable overlap) of some WG meetings, the items on the agenda were treated in a different order than originally proposed. However the minutes follow the original ordering. 0. Opening, Scribe, Admin The DB-WG meeting was opened and Ruediger Volk volunteered to take notes. As a direct result of the preceding meeting of the Routing-WG and following other discussions the proposed agenda was amended (DB statistics for Domain-Object, maintainance of e-mail attribute and .forward files for guarded objects, timing considerations for guarded objects and values, aspects of ownership of objects and deletions and inter-dependancies). 1. New Databse software 1.1 . current status Marten Terpstra gave a concise report on the current state of the "new" database software. Due to timing constraints (and the lack of documentation) there is still no official distribution of the "New DB Software". However it has already been successfully installed at a couple of sites. The slides for the presentation can be found in ftp.ripe.net:ripe/presentations/ripe-m17-marten-DB.ps.Z 1.2 . experiences No operational problems were mentioned. Operation of the software, including the organizational environment, is going very smooth and was generally appreciated. 1.3 . documentation (who, how, when, what) Documentation is still missing. A new effort is needed and will be made early February. It has to be taken into account, that Marten Terpstra will primarily work on the PRIDE project, reducing his involvement with the DB software. Action (Wilfried Woeber, NCC): produce the necessary documentation for the new DB software. 2. RIPE-Handles RIPE-Handles are urgently needed to make progress in the area of Database Exchange. Several possible methods of assigning these handles were discussed. the group reached consensus that the RIPE-Handles will be of the form RIPE-XYZ9999. It was decided that from the DB's point of view, there exists only ONE handle: the RIPE-Handle. Thus this handle is stored in the person object in the "nic-hdl:" attribute. For the initial population/conversion of the current entries, the value of the NIC-Handle will be taken and converted to a RIPE-Handle by appending the string "-RIPE". E.g. the NIC-Handle for Wilfried Woeber (WW144) will be converted to form the RIPE-Handle (WW144-RIPE). This conversion will be done only once for the inital population. There will then be a short period, when missing handles can be provided by means of "vanity-handles". After a to-be-announced flag-day, RIPE-Handles will be required for any operation on person objects in the Database. Any vanity handles used MUST be properly registered with the NCC! The same syntax has already been adopted by the JPNIC and the AUNIC. *** Please note that during the discussion (by accident) we all were talking about a prefix format *** The NCC was mandated to circulate an updated proposal, including operational aspects, and after a short review-process (e-mail), go ahead with the implementation. Action (NCC): update and re-circulate the RIPE-Handle proposal and then go ahead with the implementation. 3. PRIDE - DB Interaction Editorial comment: RIPE-81++ was treated in the Routing-WG. Currently there is no real pending issue with regard to the interaction between the PRIDE project and the RIPE-DB. After discussing possible future modifications or additions to DB objects, the NCC was mandated to go ahead and implement changes/additions to support the PRIDE project (like the hidden flags/options), unless there is a direct influence on operational aspects or changes to the user interface to the RIPE-DB. 4. Future needs 4.2 . Delete Operation vs Guarded Field interaction Various aspects of implementation of guarded objects were reviewed. With regard to possible "delete:" operation on network objects that are tagged with a guarded AS-value, consensus was to automatically notify the guardian of the AS-value. Changes to such objects do NOT generate a notification message. This functionality can be achieved by using the "notify:" attribute. The "notify:" attribute for an object is evaluated before the update is made. The technical issues of RIPE-81 was treated in the Routing-WG. Generally the transaction of deleting an object must be described. The document with the proposal for implementing guarded attributes is to be updated and recirculated for comment (e-mail, 14 days comment period). Then the NCC goes ahead with the implementation as soon as possible. Action (NCC): update and re-circulate the Guarded Fields proposal and then go ahead with the implementation. 4.3 . Phase-out of RIPE-60 stuff Jean-Michel Jouanigot continues to coordinate the migration to the RIPE-81 functionality. Any technical issues treated in the Routing-WG. 4.4 . Tools A proposal to have a certain kind of "template-mode" for checking and/or updating database objects was discussed. Several possible ways of implementing this were discussed (like a special flag for the whois-client, an interactive method at the NCC, providing a full template for further processing). Any solution proposed should be usable on most platforms. Action (NCC): investigate and propose facilities for a "template-mode" to support the maintaining database objects. 4.5 . Syntax checkers (distributed, and/or @ the NCC) The need for syntax-checking facilites for objects was again stated. The NCC was asked to look into providing this functionality and come up with a proposal. Action (NCC): Investigate and propose a syntax-checking facility for the new database software. 5. New/Revised Objects 5.1 . CLNS Routing "dom-prefix:" Henk Steenman provided an introduction to the current version of the proposal to have a database object for CLNS Routing. The only technical amendment discussed was to present the CLNP addresses in the format of xx.xxxx.xxxx.xxxx (no trailing dots). The NCC may have to review the current shell of scripts supporting the database operations for limitations in line-length. The NCC was mandated to go ahead with implementing this object after another short round of review (e-mail) of Henk's updated specification. Action (Henk Steenman): update and re-circulate the "dom-prefix:" proposal. Action (NCC): implement the CLNS Routing Object. >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm going to ask Henk to provide the (updated) proposal for the presentations directory!? 5.2 . status of "connect:" and value "LOCAL" Decision about the future of the "connect:" attribute for a Network Object was postponed after full deployment of the RIPE-81 stuff. It is expected that the "connect:" will be phased out and be replaced by a different mechanism (community?). The "connect:" attribute is no longer mandatory. 5.3 . Domain Object The status of the Domain Object was reviewed, prompted by the fact of poor coverage in the database. Again the object was felt to be useful, although currently there is little operational influence of registering (or NOT registering) domains in the database. Consensus was to ask the DNS-WG to review and maybe update the definition of the Domain Object. Action (Francis Dupont): Have the DNS group review the Domain Object and come up with either a recommendation for retirement or with an updated functionality 5.4 . others The "notify:" attribute is already implemented and is already used by the database software. The "maintainer:" attribute is already implemented but currently not used by the databse software. 6. Exchange Format 6.1 . current status No progress has been made due to the lack of RIPE-Handles. Can be progressed after implementation of RIPE-Handles. 6.2 . recommendations for further action As an aside - the group propsed to NOT enforce uniqueness of network names. 7. DB statistics (Domain-Object) Having stistics about the DB coverage of domains was seen to be potentially useful. Postponed to wait for the Domain Object review by the DNS-WG. 8. Maint. of e-mail: and .forward for guarded objects After evaluating possible szenarios it was decided that an automatic modification of either the "e-mail:" attribute of a guarded object or the .forward file for the guardian's account is not desirable. Responsibility of the maintainance remains with the guardians. 9. Timing considerations for guarded objects, values, secondary DBs Some operational issues of implementing guarded fileds were reviewed. Aspects discussed in more detail were: - timing and interlock: Some mechanism must be set up by the NCC to allow for checking the merge/update status of the current version of the database. This should allow for an automatic delay of retrieving the DB for local use and/or providing read-only copies. The NCC will come up with a technical proposal how to do this. - change control: in order to preserve the update history for databse objects a structured scheme was proposed. This method preserves the "changed:" attributes supplied by any manual update process. In addition to that any automatic up-date and/or merge operation done by the database software maintains a single related "changed:" attribute describing the "agent" performing the modification. From a formal point of view, regular maintainance and/or merge operations are NOT treated as update operations, thus e.g. they do not trigger (automatic) notification messages. Action (NCC): Propose and implement a mechanism to check the current state of the database with regard to garbage-collection and merging of guarding values. Action (NCC): Propose and implement a mechanism to properly keep track of individual updates of objects and automatic merge/modification operations. 10. Deletions, Ownership of Objects, Interdependency This was a more general discussion, focussing on issues of "ownership" of objects, inter-dependency of various components and quality of the information in the database. >From a formal point of view, there was agreement that we should stick with the concept that the responsibility for maintaining objects remains with the owner of the object. From an operational point of view it was felt necessary to perform automatic modifications to certain attributes of an objects. In the long run this could eventually lead to splitting objects along the lines of maintainance. This is for further discussion. Concern was voiced that we do not have the concept of winding down the use of methods, removing out-dated information and/or deleting objects, closing guardian's accounts, etc. It was felt that there is a need to analyze, discuss and document these issues. For the time being these aspects have to be covered in individual documents describing certain procedures, in the long run this should be an intrinsic part of the documentation. The aspect of "sanity checking" the information in the databse was shortly touched. Given the current shortage of manpower in the NCC and the important changes to be implemented in the near future this issue was postponed. Z. AOB None. -------------------- end of draft minutes --------------------

1 0

Draft Guarded Field document
by Tony Bates 24 Jan '94

24 Jan '94

Please find enclosed a DRAFT copy of a document describing the Guarded Field procedure. This gives details of both the process for updating guardian files as well as how conflicts are handled. The current status is that the software is in final beta test and all the auto-generated "AS" accounts/files have been generated (see doc for more details). Our plan is to turn the "guarded field" software on in the database on February 7th. There will be a short introduction for both the paper and implementation given in the routing working group session at next weeks RIPE meeting. All comments welcome. We plan to agree and close this document at the RIPE meeting. See you next week. --Tony. Support of Guarded fields within the RIPE Database * DRAFT * Tony Bates Document-ID: ripe-1nn 1. Introduction The RIPE database contains several significant attributes which make it well suited for use as part of operational procedures and confi- guration. Most significantly are the attributes which make up the RIPE Routing Registry (RR) as specified in RIPE-81 [1][2], namely the "aut-sys" and "comm-list" attributes. For these attributes to be of use to service providers they must be: o Properly authorised. o Efficient for both maintainers of the attributes and the main- tainers of the whole database. This document describes an overview of the RIPE database attributes which are guarded, the procedure for updating these guarded attri- butes and the general use of "guarded" fields within the RIPE data- base. 2. The Database Guarded Attributes All the guarded attributes currently supported in the RIPE database are contained within the "inetnum" or network object. However, the association corresponds to their relevant guarded database objects. If we look at a simple example this becomes clear: inetnum: 192.87.45.0 netname: RIPE-NCC descr: RIPE Network Coordination Centre descr: Amsterdam, Netherlands country: NL admin-c: Daniel Karrenberg tech-c: Marten Terpstra connect: RIPE NSF WCW aut-sys: AS1104 ripe-1nn.txt January 19, 1994 - 2 - comm-list: SURFNET ias-int: 192.87.45.80 AS1104 ias-int: 192.87.45.6 AS2122 ias-int: 192.87.45.254 AS2600 rev-srv: ns.ripe.net rev-srv: ns.eu.net notify: ops(a)ripe.net changed: tony(a)ripe.net 940110 source: RIPE This shows that the RIPE-NCC network belongs to autonomous system 1104 and is in a community known as SURFNET. This is valuable infor- mation that could easily be used for example for routing policy pur- poses (as well as other operational uses). Currently support for the following set of guarded attributes is implemented: aut-sys The "aut-sys" attribute has a direct mapping to "aut-num" objects as defined in RIPE-81. That is the Autonomous System (AS) that the network number is a part of. As defined in RIPE- 81, a network can only belong to one AS and hence the "aut-sys" attribute can only contain one AS number. The syntax of the "aut-sys" attribute is: AS<positive integer between 1 and 65535> (1). i.e. AS1104 comm-list The "comm-list" attribute has a direct mapping to "community" objects as defined in RIPE-81. A network can belong to more than one community. The syntax of "comm-list" is: Multiple text strings which cannot start with "AS" or any of the <routing policy expression> KEYWORDS defined in RIPE-81. routpr-l (2) The "routpr-l" attribute has a direct mapping to "rout-pr" objects as defined in RIPE-60 [4]. Networks can belong to more than one routing privilege. The list of networks within a rout- ing privilege represents the group of networks accepted/allowed by a set of routers described by the information in the "rout- pr" object. The syntax for "routpr-l" is as follows: Multiple text strings representing the routing privilege. _________________________ (1) This represents a change from RIPE-50 [3] where the "aut-sys" attribute was defined to be a positive integer only, not containing the string "AS" at the start. This change has been made to be consistent with the "aut-num" object syntax. ripe-1nn.txt January 19, 1994 - 3 - bdrygw-l The "bdrygw-l" attribute has a direct mapping to "bdry-gw" objects as defined in RIPE-60 [4]. Networks can belong to more than one boundary gateway. The list of networks within a boun- dary gateway represents the group of networks advertised by a set of routers described by the information in the "bdry-gw" object. The syntax for "bdrygw-l" is as follows: Multiple text strings representing the boundary gateways iden- tification. As these attributes are tightly coupled to their associated objects it makes sense for these attributes to be updated not by the network maintainer but by the maintainer of the referenced object(s). The basic premise behind this is that these attributes should be used for various operational procedures such as setting routing policy, accounting and so on. For these attributes to be used by network operators for day to day operations they need to be guarded in such a way that can be trusted and are guaranteed to be unique - with any conflicts quickly and easily resolved. The procedure for achieving this is detailed below. 3. The Basic Procedure For each of the guarded attributes detailed above, a list of all networks having this attribute is kept separately from the general database itself. These lists (also called `guarded files') will be maintained and be served as the `only' source of membership informa- tion used in the database. Normal database updates `never' change these attributes. If an update includes such an attribute and a discrepancy between the values in the update and those in the data- base is found, a diagnostic message will be sent to the originator of the update and the guarded value(s) will not be affected. The attributes as defined in these files are incorporated in the data- base once a day. To ensure proper control and authorisation, these lists will be maintained at the RIPE NCC on the same machine that contains the RIPE database. The "guardians" of the corresponding database objects will have to maintain their own guarded files. The guardians are provided with individually assigned login accounts at the RIPE NCC. The guardians can themselves decide in what manner they want to update their file. The NCC will offer interactive logins, ftp logins or any other means that might be deemed useful. _________________________ (2) It should be noted that both "routpr-l" and "bdrygw-l" attributes have been agreed to be phased out in preference of the "aut-sys" and "comm-list" attri- butes as soon as the `guarded field' mechanism is in place. ripe-1nn.txt January 19, 1994 - 4 - 3.1. Some Details As stated each guardian will be issued with an account on the cen- tral NCC machine known as `guardian.ripe.net'. This account will contain a `restricted' environment which will allow the guardian of the relevant object to update their associated guardian file (3). Wherever possible the account name issued to the guardian will be the same as the object name. For example, the guardian of the AS1104 aut-num object will receive an account known as "AS1104". With each guardian account the corresponding file will be parsed at each update run (once a day). This file will contain the list on networks associated with the object. See appendix A for details of the format and syntax of the guardian files. A tool will also be provided within the restricted environment to syntax check the guarded file to avoid against possible typos and errors. With each account, an electronic mail address (this is a mandatory attribute for all guarded objects) will be used by the NCC and data- base software. To make this flexible for the guardian a ".forward" file with the account which can be change when required. This will mean mail sent to <guardian-name(a)guardian.ripe.net> will go the to correct guardian. 3.2. How does it work ? For each of the guarded files found on `guardian.ripe.net' the data- base software will load any guarded attribute value(s) for the net- work object(s) listed in the guarded file. This will take place at the same time as the database is garbage collected (currently at 0500 MET). If a conflict is found (i.e if more than one entry exists for an attribute which can only contain one entry, currently only "aut-sys" contains this property), the current value will remain unchanged and all guardians involved in the conflict will be sent an electronic mail message informing them of the conflict. See Appendix B for an example. If no conflict is found the attribute will be updated with the guarded value. Correspondingly, to remove a guarded attribute just remove the net- work entry from the relevant guarded file and it will be deleted at the next update run. To be notified of this delete the "notify" attribute should be used. _________________________ (3) As stated, the mechanism for updating the guardi- an file will initially be by interactive login or file transfer. However, this doesn't preclude other mechan- isms in the future. ripe-1nn.txt January 19, 1994 - 5 - If a guardian file contains an entry which is not in the database then the guardian will be notified as part of the conflict handling procedure. If an update is sent to the database software using another mechan- ism (i.e. mail to auto-dbm(a)ripe.net) that contains a guarded attri- bute, this will not be allowed to change the guarded attribute. If the value of the attribute is the same as what is currently registered in the database then no warnings will be given. However, if the update contains a value for a guarded attribute that is dif- ferent to that registered in the database, a warning will be sent to the originator and the guarded value will remain unchanged. Although the guarded process will run once a day as part of the database garbage collection procedure it will also be possible to, "on request to the NCC", run an emergency guarded update process for a particular guarded object. 4. Getting it started As this is a new (and much needed, especially for the "aut-sys" attribute) mechanism, a degree of `bootstrapping' is needed to make it easier for network providers and IRs to transition to using the guarded file procedure. The NCC has built an automated generation scheme for attributes that are known to be in use (currently, this means AS numbers). For all the AS numbers seen to be routed in Europe, accounts for the guardians have already been put in place having the guardian's mailbox point to a mailbox at the RIPE NCC. For these ASs currently guarded files are generated on a daily basis by analyzing European full routing tables. This means there could (and almost certainly will) be some conflicts within the generated guardian files. As soon as the account is handed over, the auto-generation for that guardian account stops and the mailbox is changed to the correct guardian mailbox. Guardians can of course make use of the auto- generated guarded files if they wish to check against their own records. From the moment of `hand-over' it is now the guardians responsibility to make sure their associated network(s) get the correct guarded attributes by listing them in the guarded files. The advantage of having this `bootstrap' method is that it will allow population of the guarded "aut-sys" attribute to take place immediately this functionality is enabled in the RIPE database software. It also acts as an incentive for networks operators and local IR's to transition to the guarded file procedure as soon as possible. 5. Conclusion The update procedure as detailed above has the following advantages: o Authorisation of adding/deleting is guaranteed. ripe-1nn.txt January 19, 1994 - 6 - o No need for mailing back and forth of authorisation messages. o Simple procedure for both database maintainers and guardians. o Guardians keep full control of their attribute. It allows for the addition of any number of guarded attributes in the future. It describes a simple but effective procedure for main- taining the guarded files whilst not precluding alternate mechanisms in the future. 6. References [1] Bates, T., Jouanigot, J-M., Karrenberg, D., Lothberg, P., Terpstra, M., "Representation of IP Routing Policies in the RIPE Database", RIPE-81, February 1993. [2] Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., "Description of Inter-AS Networks in the RIPE Routing Registry", RIPE-103, December 1993. [3] Karrenberg, D., "RIPE Database Template for Networks", RIPE-50, April 1992. [4] J.-M. Jouanigot, "Policy based routing within RIPE", May 1992. ripe-1nn.txt January 19, 1994 - 7 - Appendix A - Format of Guardian Files. We propose to keep the file format as simple as possible. The name of the file is identical to the name of guarded object. The format used within the file is kept simple. It allows lines to be either comments or the actual object entry that is to be guarded. A comment must contain either a semi-colon (;) or hash (#) at the beginning of the comment line. The object name entries must be exactly the same as they are in the database. Currently, the only object containing guarded attributes is the "inetnum" object so the file can contain either the `well-known' dotted quad network notation or RIPE dotted quad range notation. Here is a simple example of what the AS1104 guarded file would look like. The file would be stored in the home directory of the AS1104 account on guardian.ripe.net and be called AS1104 (told you it was simple). It would contain something like the following: # # File : AS1104 # ; An alternate comment format ; ; This file was updated jan.dijkstra(a)gouda.nl ; on 940109 ; 192.16.183.0 192.16.185.0 - 192.16.186.0 192.16.194.0 192.16.199.0 192.87.45.0 Empty lines in the file are also ignored but you are encouraged to keep the file as concise as possible. As stated above, a tool known as `checkguard' will be available to make it simple to check the syntax of the guarded file. ripe-1nn.txt January 19, 1994 - 8 - Appendix B - Example of conflict handling If a conflict occurs (e.g. by listing the same network number in more han one AS guarded file), then each of the guardians involved will be notified on the conflict by electronic mail. Let's look at a simple example. Suppose the guardians for AS1104 and AS2122 update their relevant guardian files and create a conflict by having the same network in them. For this example he network in question is "192.16.183.0". Here is the AS1104 guardian file: # 192.16.183.0 192.16.185.0 192.16.186.0 192.16.194.0 192.16.199.0 192.87.45.0 And here is the AS2122 guardian file: # 192.16.183.0 193.0.0.0 - 193.0.7.0 As you can see "192.16.183.0 exists in both files. At update time the following mails are generated. Firstly, to the guardian of AS2122. Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 13:22:43 +0100 Message-Id: <9401141222.AA07125(a)ns.ripe.net> From: RIPE Database Conflict Handler <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net> Subject: Guarded attributes conflicts found To: as2122(a)ripe.net Dear Guardian, One or more conflicts have been found regarding guarded attributes in the RIPE database. Some of the conflicts concern the guarded values you are a guardian for. Please verify and correct the conflicts below. The guarded values for objects below have been set to the value they had in the database before this guarded attributes run. Kind Regards, RIPE Database Conflict Department ------ "192.16.183.0" also appears in guardian files: AS1104 And similarly to the AS1104 guardian. ripe-1nn.txt January 19, 1994 - 9 - Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 13:22:42 +0100 Message-Id: <9401141222.AA07121(a)ns.ripe.net> From: RIPE Database Conflict Handler <ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net> Subject: Guarded attributes conflicts found To: as1104(a)ripe.net Dear Guardian, One or more conflicts have been found regarding guarded attributes in the RIPE database. Some of the conflicts concern the guarded values you are a guardian for. Please verify and correct the conflicts below. The guarded values for objects below have been set to the value they had in the database before this guarded attributes run. Kind Regards, RIPE Database Conflict Department ------ "192.16.183.0" also appears in guardian files: AS2122 >From this you can see conflict can be quickly and easily resolved, assuming good collaboration between the guardians. The existing database entry will of course not be changed with regard to the guarded attribute) as long as there exists a conflict. ripe-1nn.txt January 19, 1994

3 4

Draft on CIDR FAQ
by vannozzi＠nis.garr.it 21 Jan '94

21 Jan '94

Hello all, you can find below the draft on CIDR FAQ produced by Giuliana Tamorri. All comments and suggestions welcome. Daniele ---------------------------------------------------- GARR-NIS January 1994 FAQ on CIDR DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT 1) What is CIDR? Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) is an architecture for allocating IP addresses in the Internet [1]. It plays an important role in steering the Internet towards the Address Assignment and Aggregating Strategy [3]. 2) Why do we need to plan an architecture such as CIDR? The IP address space is a scarce shared resource that must be managed for the good of the community. Due to the growth of the Internet, some scaling problems arosen [2,3,6,11]: - Exhaustion of the class-B network address space. More than half of the total class B address space has been handed out. One fundamental cause of this problem is the lack of an appropriate sized network number for a mid-sized organization. Class-C, with a maximum of 254 host addresses, is too small, while class-B, which allows up to 65534 addresses, is too large to be densely populated. The result is inefficient utilization of class-B network numbers. - Routing information overload. The size and rate of growth of the routing tables in Internet routers is beyond the ability of current software (and people) to be effectively managed. This is mainly a problem for those routers which don't use a default route, and have to carry a routing entry for each network they need connectivity to. The current growth trend is approximatelly exponential. - Eventual exhaustion of IP network numbers. With more than half of the class B networks assigned and a little over 6 percent of the class C networks assigned, and the current growth in the address allocation rate, this is a real, though not imminent danger. The first two problems will become extrimely critical in a near future. CIDR defines a mechanism to: i) slow the growth of routing table providing a mechanism for aggregation of routing information ii) reduce the need to allocate new IP network numbers managing the allocation of Internet address space. [page 1] The last point takes great advantages from the assigment policy reported in RFC 1466 [10] in which a managing schema for IP Address Space is defined. The rules of the class C network number allocation defined in [10], will quickly accelerate the explosion of the routing information carried by Internet routers. Anyhow, assignment of consecutive class C network number will facilitate and favourite the aggregation mechanism developed by CIDR. The rule foresees to delegate to the network service providers the address allocation of the class C network numbers. 3) Is CIDR a solution to the serious scaling problem of the Internet? Yes, it is, but not a permanent one. It is a transition phase, or a short-term solution, in order to allow the development of a long-term solution, which will also cover the problem of the exhaustion of IP network numbers. CIDR will mainly deal with the solution (since the present problem, a short-term one) of the routing table explosion problem. 4) Which are the aspects analyzed in realising an Address Allocation schema? Some of the technical and administrative aspects of an IP address allocation faced in deploying a CIDR architecture are reported in [1]: - Benefits of encoding some topological information in IP addresses to significantly reduce routing protocol overhead; - The anticipated need for additional levels of hierarchy in Internet addressing to support network growth; - The recommended mapping between Internet topological entities (i.e., service providers, and service subscribers) and IP addressing and routing components; - The recommended division of IP address assignment among service providers (e.g., backbones, regionals), and service subscribers (e.g., sites); - Allocation of the IP addresses by the Internet Registry; - Choice of the high-order portion of the IP addresses in leaf routing domains that are connected to more than one service provider (e.g., backbone or a regional network). - Identification of specific administrative domains in the Internet. [page 2] 5) Which is the Authority to which an organization could ask for a network number? The centralised procedures for obtaining IP network numbers from the Global Internet Registry (known as InterNIC previously the DDN NIC) is now replaced by a distributed allocation schema [10,12,13]. At the present, there are a number of Distributed Regional Registries to which Internet Registry (IR) and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) have delegated the registration function on a geographic area. These Regional Registres cover many geographical areas; but until an organization is identified in those regions, the IR will continue to serve as the default registry. That is, the IR remains the root registry and continues to provide the registration function to all those regions not covered by distributed regional registries. So, it is possible for network applicants to contact the IR directly, but it will be referred to the Regional Registry, if any. Regional Registry in turn delegates blocks of IP network numbers to local IR's. They are of two types: "service provider" and "registry of last resort". An IP service provider is an organisation that supplies Internet connectivity to its customers or users (examples are academic network providers and commercial network providers). "Registry of last resort" local IR's are managed by organisations that are prepared to handle requests from organisations that have no present or planned connection to the Internet. The diagram below shows the distributed hierarchy of IR. Global IR (InterNIC) | | Regional IR (RIPE NCC) | ________________________|____________________ | | | | Local IR Local IR Local IR Local IR / / ( "REGISTRY" (SERVICE PROVIDERS) (SERVICE PROVIDER) OF LAST RESORT") In Europe, the IR has now delegated blocks of IP network numbers to the RIPE NCC as the registry for the European region, which following the main criteria, delegates blocks of IP network numbers to local IR's. If you are NOT a customer of a service provider, then you should send your completed application form to the "registry of last resort" local IR. Currently only one of this type of registry exists in the european countries. 6) Which are the criteria to submit an appropriate request for a block of class C network number? It mainly depends on the organizational network topology, ie number of internal LANs, and on the needed address numbers, taking in mind [page 3] the end system type, ie hosts, routers, printers, terminal server, etc. The following schema, which takes in consideration the number of hosts to be connected per network, could be a starting guide to evaluate the number of class C networks to be applied for. 1 class C ----> 254 hosts 2 class C ----> 508 hosts 4 class C ----> 1016 hosts 8 class C ----> 2032 hosts 16 class C ----> 4064 hosts 32 class C ----> 8128 hosts Moreover, if the network is divided into logically distinct LANs across which it could be difficult to use a smaller number of class C network numbers, the above criteria may apply on a per-LAN basis. It is important to submit the request with an engineering plan which can motivate it. If the request will be inappropriate, it will be investigated and suggested a different solution which could take advantage of the feasibility of subnetting Class C network numbers which can resolve the need of a great number of Class C network; in particular, it can resolve the problem of requesting a network number for every subnet. If there is a need for more than 4096 unique IP addresses it could conceivably receive a Class B network number. The maximal block of Class C network numbers that should be assigned to a subscriber consists of 64 contiguous Class C networks. This would correspond to a single IP prefix of 18 bits. It is also important that an organization could foresee its growth in requesting the block of contiguos network numbers. As a consequence, submitting its forms to its Local Registry, an organization must indicate which could be its immediate growth in terms of number of machines to be connected and of subnet numbers foreseen for its network. 7) When could an organization consider to approach a subnetting criteria? If an address space needed for an organizatin covers only about tens addresses, and there are no plans to expand in the future, it makes little sense to allocate a full class C network number for this local network [11]. More details on subnetting technique can be found in [14], a Standard Internet. However, two issues must be taken into consideration in subnetting class C networks: i) subnets and hosts numbered "0" and "-1" are reserved for special purpose in IP (broadcast and this host/subnet indication. [page 4] ii) which kind of protocol to be used to distribute subnets information within the network. Limits imposed by the first point have led to the development of some technique which can improve the address space utilization. One of them is "variable-lengh subnet mask" (VLSM). For the second issue, it is suggested to use a new generation interior protocol. With old ones, such as RIP, it is quite impossible to distribute information on subnets. While with the new ones, as OSPS, integrated IS-IS or RIP-2, announced destinations carry a corrisponding network mask, favouring the subnetting mechanism. 8) Which would be an appropriate request for a class B network number, in order to be approved? An organization applying for a class B network number must present a subnetting plan which documents more than 32 subnets within its network and must have more than 4096 hosts. The submitted document must demonstrate the impossibility of engineering the network with a block of class C network numbers. The engineering plan must include both how many hosts and how many hosts per subnet the network will have within the next 24 months. 9) What does hierarchy mean in Internet addressing? How could hierarchy help in reducing the growth of routing table? The situation in which each domain may have non-contiguous network numbers assigned to it could lead to a dissemination of routing information in the Internet. If routing domains are randomly interconnected, it is difficult to obtain a degree of routing data abstraction. Moreover, at a lower level, if IP addresses within a routing domain are all drawn from non-contiguous IP address spaces (allowing no aggregation or abstraction), then the information exchanged between boundary router consists of an enumerated list of all the IP addresses. Anyhow, being service providers and service subscribers (ie sites, routing domain) arranged hierarchically in the Internet, it is natural to map this hierarchy also to the IP routing components. The aim of using a hierarchical routing is to achieve some level of routing data abstraction: an element lower in the hierarchy reports summary routing information to its parents. The idea is to assign to any group of routing domains an address prefix from a a shorter prefix given to a routing domain which has the function of interconnecting the group of routing domains. It is clear that the routing abstraction carries more advantages at a higher levels of the hierarchy. 10) Does it mean all the routing domains in the Internet need to convert to CIDR? No, it is not required all Internet domains to be converted to use CIDR, neither now nor in the future; anyhow, it is assured [page 5] the global connectivity, including for those non-CIDR domains for which, however, optimality of routes could be impacted. The only constrain on a non-CIDR-capable domain is the need to default towards the CIDR-capable parts of the Internet for routes which have been aggregated to non-network boundaries [2]. Anyhow, it is strongly reccommended that all non-backbone/transit Internet domains also implement CIDR because it will reduce the amount of routing information inside them. Any connected domain that supports IP version 4, could implement CIDR. On the contrary, it is imposed ALL Internet domains providing backbone and/or transit service to fully implement CIDR, ensuring a slow growth of the routing table, while providing Internet-wide connectivity. 11) Which are the protocols supporting CIDR architecture? Two main protocols realising the CIDR architecture are: i) Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) ii) Inter-Domain Routing Protocol (IDRP for IP) Each of them are inter-domain routing protocol, but the last one has been standardized within ISO as multi-protocol. BGP-4 is an extension of BGP-3 that provides support for routing information aggregation and reduction based on CIDR architecture. They are quite interchangeble [6]. 12) What is an aggregate? What is an IP-prefix? What an IP-mask? CIDR removes the concept of class A, B and C networks providing a new representation of the destination address as a combination of an address and a mask. The aim is to represent multiple contiguos class C networks with a single routing table entry [11]. CIDR requires that inter-domain routing protocols be capable of handling reachability information that is expressed solely in terms of IP address prefixes [2]. It is possible to support aggregation through the use of an IP address prefix. Indipendently of the "class" of IP network number, an aggregate collects a set of network addresses matching a pattern. In other words, an aggregate combines announcements for a set of separate networks into a single net aggregate. It is now visible how the notion of "class" in routing information will lose importance. It is not mandated the use of a particular IP address prefix, and till now there is no standardized one. [page 6] In [1], an IP-prefix is a tuple: <IP-address IP-mask> such that a bitwise logical AND operation on the IP-address and IP-mask components of a tuple yields the sequence of leftmost contiguous significant bits that form the IP address prefix. For example a tuple with the value <193.1.0.0 255.255.0.0> denotes an IP address prefix with 16 leftmost contiguous significant bits. In [7], which describes the NSFNET aggregation schema, an aggregate is described as: <net-IP prefix-length>. This refers to the IP prefix "net-IP", with a mask which has "prefix-length" 1's as counted from the high-order end. For example, <192.64.128 17> is equivalent to <192.64.128, 255.255.128.0> [7]. They choose to use a prefix-length rather than the mask, considering it more compact. 13) What is a CIDR Aggregate Registry? It has become evident the need for sharing of aggregate information; there is a clear need to have a separate database which will allow aggregate information from any Autonomous System to be stored and made available for easy electronic retrieval. This information can be used for routing coordination and policy configuration in the larger inter-domain context. One of the expected uses of such a database is to help determine, as CIDR matures, the granularity of aggregation of network reachability information with respect to policy. In [7], Merit proposes an implementation of an "Aggregate Registry" to provide sharing of aggregate information for the Internet inter-domain routing community. It should be a community registry and MERIT invites all to use and make use of it. It will consist of a list of aggregate announcement statements. 14) Who does realise aggregation? Speaking in term of BGP, a border BGP router of an AS will be responsable for generating the aggregated route for a whole set of destination IP addresses (NLRI) under its administrative control. NLRI [6] stays for Network Layer Reachability Information and represents a set of destination IP addresses over which a border BGP speaker has an administrative control. When aggregating NLRI, a border BGP must be cognizant of the implication on routing policies [6]. [page 7] References: [1] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, "An Architecture for IP Address Allocation with CIDR" RFC 1518, T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp., cisco Systems, September 1993. [2] R. Hinden, "Applicability Statement for the Implementation of Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)", RFC 1517, Internet Engineering Steering Group, September 1993. [3] V. Fuller, T. Li, J. Yu, K. Varadhan, "Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy", RFC 1519, BARRNet, cisco, Merit, and OARnet, September 1993. [4] Y. Rekhter, C. Topolcic, "Exchanging Routing Information Across Provider Boundaries in the CIDR Environment", RFC 1520, T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp., CNRI, September 1993. [5] C. Topolcic, "Status of CIDR Deployment in the Internet", RFC 1467, CNRI, August 1993. [6] Y. Rekhter, S. Hares, "Application of the Border Gateway Protocol and IDRP for IP in the Internet", <draft-ietf-bgp-idrp-usage-00.txt>. [7] M. Knopper, S. J. Richardson, "Aggregation Support in NSFNET Policy-Based Routing Database", RFC1482, Merit/NSFNET, June 1993. [8] C. Huitema, "IAB Recommendation for an Intermediate Strategy to Address the Issue of Scaling", RFC 1481, Internet Architecture Board, July 1993. [9] C. Topolcic, "Schedule for IP Address Space Management Guidelines", RFC 1367, CNRI, October 1992. [10] E. Gerich, "Guidelines for Management of IP Address Space", RFC 1466, Merit, May 1993. [11] H. Eidnes, "Pratical Consideration for Network Addressing using CIDR Block Allocation", Network Address Assignment, Proc.INET '93. [12] "European IP network number application form & supporting notes", ripe-107. [13] D. Karrenberg, M. Terpstra, "European Internet Registry: IP Address Space Assignment Procedures", ripe-104. [14] J. Mogul, J. Postel, "Internet standard subnetting procedure", RFC 950, Stanford, ISI, Agust 1985. [page 8] -- Daniele Vannozzi Phone: +39 50 593280 GARR - Network Information Service Fax: +39 50 904052 Via Santa Maria 36 Telex: 500371 - CNUCE 56126 Pisa - Italy E-mail: vannozzi(a)nis.garr.it ----- -----

1 0

Proposal for a CLNS routing domain object for the RIPE database.
by Henk Steenman 21 Jan '94

21 Jan '94

Here is the proposal for the CLNS routing domain object for the RIPE datase as will be presented next tuesday during the DB workgroup meeting. This version is almost similar as the one presented at a previous RIPE meeting. The main differences are a new attribute "dom-name", an introduction describing shortly why such an object is desired and an appendix that gives a very short comment on the breakdown of NSAP's for some commonly used AFI's. - Henk Steenman SARA, NIC - --------------------- CUT HERE --------------------------------------------- CLNS routing-domain object for the RIPE database Version 1.2 Jan 1994 Henk Steenman Henk_Steenman(a)sara.nl +31 20 5928038 CLNS routing-domain object Page 2 Introduction. ____________ In the RARE lower layer technology work group for CLNS it was recognised that in order to coordinate routing between CLNS routing domains a central registry for such domains was necessary. At a meeting of the work group at the 27 IETF in Amsterdam it was decided to write a registry specification. At this meeting the RIPE NCC offered to extend their database for IP domains/networks with CLNS related objects if a sound proposal came forward. Below a description of a database object for CLNS routing domains is defined. The object can be used to describe some general information of a CLNS routing domain such as NSAP prefix, name, description and responsible persons. It can also be used to describe routing policies in a manner comparable to that for IP domains ( AS's ) as defined in the paper RIPE 81 [1]. The attributes describing routing policy are intended to be set-up such that routing tables for static inter-domain routing can be derived from them or excisting routing can be checked against the described policy. It is desired that tools are made to serve these tasks. It is understood that the object as described below is subject to change when CLNS routing developes. An example of this could be the future availability of IDRP for dynamic inter-domain routing. In an appendix, some generally used combinations of the Authority and Format Identifier (AFI) and the Initial Domain Identifier (IDI) are shown. CLNS routing-domain object Page 3 Object Description _________________ dom-prefix: Defines an unique routing domain, characterised by a NSAP prefix , within a certain prefix hierarchy. Example: dom-prefix: 39528f1100 dom-name: String representing the routing domain. Format: Text string. Example: dom-name: SURFnet-CLNS descr: Description of the organisation and place of its location Format is equal to the descr attribute as defined for IP autonomous systems in [1]. bis: Format : < bis NET > < dom-prefix > NET of boundary intermediate system to between two domains Example: SURFnet BIS for EuropaNet bis: 39528f1100100020000000000100000c0429b400 39528f1103 CLNS routing-domain object Page 4 dom-in: Description of accepted routing domain prefixes, from other domain BIS. Analogue to "as-in" in [1]. Format:< dom-prefix > < cost> <routing policy expression > For every BIS you peer with, there should be such an entry <dom-prefix> is the routing domain prefix where the BIS you peer with belongs to. <cost> is a relative cost to discriminate between different routes to the same domain. The lowest cost gives the most preferred route. <routing policy expression > can be expressed in the following way's 1: list of "dom-prefixes" Example: dom-in: 39528f1103 100 39124F 470005 2: KEYWORD Only one keyword for the moment ANY - accept everything you get announced. 3: A logical expression of 1 and/or 2. The following operators should be defined AND OR NOT Parenthesis are used to group rules. Example: dom-in: 39528f1103 ANY AND NOT 39756f Accept all announcements from EMPB BIS except for the Switzerland routing domain. CLNS routing-domain object Page 5 dom-out: Routing domain prefixes announced to other BIS'. Analogue to the "as-out' tag in [1]. Format : < dom-prefix > <routing policy expression > <dom-prefix> is the routing domain prefix where the BIS you peer with belongs to. <routing policy expression > As defined with the dom-in tag. Example: dom-out: 39528f1103 39528f1100 AND NOT 39528f1100000910 Advertise to Europanet the SURFnet-CLNS routing domain but not the PTT-Research routing domain. default: Indication how default routing is done default: < dom-prefix> <cost> <dom-prefix> again is the prefix of the domain where the BIS peer is in. <cost> indicates which default path is preferred. In a static routing environment this doesn't make sense. Example: default: 39528f1103 10 Default everything is routed to 39528f1103 CLNS routing-domain object Page 6 admin-c: Administrative contact. Format equal to admin-c in [1]. tech-c: Technical contact Format equal to tech-c in [1]. guardian: e-mail and/or postal address of domain guardian. Analogue to AS guardian in [1]. source: Source of the information. Equal to source field in [1]. remark: remarks or comments Equal to remark field in [1] changed: Who and when of last change. Equal to change field in [1]. CLNS routing-domain object Page 7 Example: _________ dom-prefix: 39528f1100 descr: SURFnet-CLNS domain. bis: 39528f1100100020000000000100000c0429b400 39528f1103 dom-in: 39528f1103 100 ANY AND NOT 39528f1100000910 dom-in: 39528f1100000910 100 39528f1100000910 dom-out: 39528f1103 39528f1100 AND NOT 39528f1100000910 dom-out: 39528f1100000910 39528f1100 default: 39528f1103 10 admin-c: Victor Reijs tech-c: Henk Steenman guardian: domain-guardian(a)surfnet.nl source: RIPE changed: henk(a)sara.nl 930716 SURFnet accepts from EMPB ( 39528f1103 ) all prefixes but one, 39528f1100000910, which is PTT-research that is connected to both EMPB and SURFnet. From PTT-research SURFnet only accepts the PTT-research prefix. SURFnet announces to EMPB, 39528f1100 but not 39528f1100000910. To PTT-research only 39528f1100 is announced. Translated to static routing; on the SURFnet BIS connected to PTT- research, there is a static route to 39528f1100000910. And on the SURFnet BIS connected to EMPB there is a static route to all other know prefixes. On both the PTT-reserach and EMPB BIS's connected to SURFnet there is a static route to 39528f1100. CLNS routing-domain object Page 8 Appendix A. ___________ Definition of NSAP structure is defined in OSI 8348 Ad2 [2]. In general: NSAP's are always an integer number of octets where the AFI is always one octet and the IDI is always an integer number of octets. NSAP's are hierarchical structured and once the AFI is decided upon, structuring of the rest of the NSAP is up to authorities down the tree. Two common AFI are 47 and 39 and can be described by some general rules. AFI: 39 Describes that the following two octets are the ISO DCC country codes. Since these codes are always described by three digits, padding with an "f" is necessary to complete the 2 octets. Further structure is done by the authority for each country and there is no general rule. AFI: 47 IDI: 4 defines OSINET. Followed by a two byte organisation identifier. IDI: 5 defines US-GOSIP Version 1 defines a two byte organisation identifier. Version 2 defines a one byte data format identifier, a two byte zero field a three byte administrative authority a two byte routing domain id. ^L ^L CLNS routing-domain object Page 9 References __________ [1] : RIPE-81, Representation of IP routing Policies in the RIPE database, Tony Bates, Jean-Michel Jouanigot, Daniel Karrenberg, Peter Lothberg and Marten Terpstra, Feb. 1993 [2] : Network Services Definition, Addendum 2, covering Network Layer Addressing.

1 0

WG agenda
by jimi＠dxcoms.cern.ch 21 Jan '94

21 Jan '94

Here is the agenda of the coming Routing-WG. Blasco, I put you on the agenda just to introduce the subject (you remember de discussion on the list), but I will present the issues myself (I'll have some slides about it). If you want any other item to be discussed, please let me know. See you all in Amsterdam, -- Jean-Michel ------------------------------- RIPE Routing-WG Draft Agenda Amsterdam, Tuesday January 25th 0. Previous minutes; action list (5 minutes) Minutes taker 1. Ripe-81 1.1 Introduction; AS registration statistics (NCC) 1.2 Guarded attributes (NCC) 1.2.1 Implementation (discussion, hopefully agreement) 1.2.2 Block splitting (Marten), discussion 1.3 Use of Ripe-81; conversion of Ripe-60 (reminder, brief) 1.4 Ripe-81 enhancements 1.4.1 DMZ (Description of Inter-AS Networks in the RIPE Routing Registry" (ptraceroute issue). Status (brief) 1.4.2 Colouring, proposal, discussion 1.5 Ripe-81 limitations and pending issues 1.5.1 AS macros (Ripe-81 proposal), examples, discussion 1.5.2 Default route representation (Blasco), what can't we represent ? 1.5.3 Inter-AS Local Information, discussion 2. Closing, AOB ------------------------------

2 1

needed hints on FAQ
by giuliana＠nis.garr.it 04 Jan '94

04 Jan '94

Hello all, having proposed myself as volunteer in documenting the FAQ on CIDR and subnetting, I have tried to collect a list of documents on which basing in writing the FAQ. I would like to have any suggestion from you regarding which documents, included into the following list or not, would be better to focus the arguments. Moreover, I would appreciate any hint about which queries are commonly asked. Many tanks in advance Giuliana Tamorri =============================================================================== 001: [1000] ripe-m-14 1731 002: [1000] rfc1520 507 003: [1000] draft-ietf-iesg-cidr-01 82 004: [ 870] draft-fuller-cidr-strategy-03 56 005: [ 826] draft-egevang-addrtrans-01 619 006: [ 783] draft-rekhter-cidr-environment-01 58 007: [ 609] draft-ietf-bgp-idrp-usage-00 1294 008: [ 609] draft-ietf-sip-ipae-transition-00 3468 009: [ 609] draft-ietf-sip-overview-00 1237 010: [ 583] ripe-073 1719 011: [ 565] draft-ietf-osinsap-allocation-00 2441 012: [ 542] ripe-m-12 1452 013: [ 542] ripe-m-15 1481 014: [ 542] ripe-048 403 015: [ 539] rfc1482 619 016: [ 522] draft-hares-idrp-05 1191 017: [ 522] draft-ietf-bgp-application-03 1179 018: [ 500] ripe-m-16 1709 019: [ 478] 1id-abstracts 2574 020: [ 478] draft-iab-ipversion7-00 914 021: [ 478] draft-ietf-bgp-bgp4-implement-00 282 022: [ 478] draft-nsfnet-aggregation-00 60 023: [ 458] ripe-104 308 024: [ 435] draft-ietf-ripv2-protocol-analysis-00 222 025: [ 410] rfc1519 1347 026: [ 348] draft-ietf-osids-ipinfo-x500-dir-00.ps /local/spool/ftpp 2467 027: [ 348] draft-ietf-osids-ipinfo-x500-dir-00 1254 028: [ 333] rfc1517 227 029: [ 316] rfc1467 507 030: [ 304] draft-hitchcock-eid-00 292 031: [ 291] ripe-100 1957 032: [ 290] rfc1380 1235 033: [ 273] rfc1518 1515 034: [ 250] ripe-062 1451 035: [ 250] ripe-087 1764 036: [ 217] 1id-index 858 037: [ 217] draft-houldsworth-sc6-documents-00 315 038: [ 217] draft-ietf-bgp-bgp4-06 3191 039: [ 217] draft-ietf-ipidrp-sip-01 1180 040: [ 217] draft-ietf-ospf-mib-01 5428 041: [ 217] draft-rekhter-ipaddress-guide-08 56 042: [ 208] ripe-a-14 141 043: [ 208] ripe-079 1390 044: [ 208] ripe-083 1040 045: [ 208] ripe-085 174 046: [ 208] ripe-088 979 047: [ 208] ripe-090 1578 048: [ 208] ripe-095 979 049: [ 208] ripe-098 979 050: [ 171] rfc1540 1907 051: [ 162] rfc1481 115 054: [ 85] rfc1347 561 055: [ 85] rfc1387 171 056: [ 85] rfc1539 1235 058: [ 59] rfc1454 843 059: [ 51] rfc1383 787 060: [ 42] rfc1335 395 061: [ 42] rfc1371 507 062: [ 42] rfc1466 563 063: [ 42] rfc1475 1963 -- ---------- ------------- Giuliana Tamorri E-mail: giuliana(a)jolly.nis.garr.it GARR-NIS Phone NIS: +39 50 593360 c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR Fax: +39 50 904052 via S. Maria, 36 Telex: 500371 - CNUCE 56126 PISA Italy ---------- -------------

1 0