Re: [NOC] ARIN contact needed: something bad happens with legacy IPv4 block's reverse delegations

[Romeo Zwart]

Dear all,

RIPE NCC have issued a statement about the issue here:

 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2017-March/003394.html

Our apologies for the inconvenience caused.

Kind regards,
Romeo Zwart
RIPE NCC

On 17/03/17 12:31 , John Curran wrote:
> Eygene - 
> 
>   We are aware there’s an issue and working on it presently with RIPE. 
>   Expect additional updates shortly.
> 
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
>> On 17 Mar 2017, at 11:04 AM, Eygene Ryabinkin  wrote:
>>
>> Job, good day.
>>
>> Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 09:55:56AM +, Job Snijders wrote:
>>> 171 also seems affected.
>>
>> Not the whole one, it seems:
>> {{{
>> $ dig +trace -t soa 1.171.in-addr.arpa
>>
>> ; <<>> DiG 9.10.4-P6 <<>> +trace -t soa 1.171.in-addr.arpa
>> ;; global options: +cmd
>> .202634  IN  NS  m.root-servers.net.
>> .202634  IN  NS  i.root-servers.net.
>> .202634  IN  NS  k.root-servers.net.
>> .202634  IN  NS  c.root-servers.net.
>> .202634  IN  NS  a.root-servers.net.
>> .202634  IN  NS  d.root-servers.net.
>> .202634  IN  NS  l.root-servers.net.
>> .202634  IN  NS  e.root-servers.net.
>> .202634  IN  NS  g.root-servers.net.
>> .202634  IN  NS  b.root-servers.net.
>> .202634  IN  NS  j.root-servers.net.
>> .202634  IN  NS  h.root-servers.net.
>> .202634  IN  NS  f.root-servers.net.
>> .511016  IN  RRSIG   NS 8 0 518400 2017032917 
>> 2017031616 61045 . 
>> OjsjoA6WCcThV3BqhAyMaXI3bU1m228Gl8nvaR074qBtem/RjaFJh1Oe 
>> r7LPI6W15jgbRGuCY7/GUNgDex4ZM43yvx2iY+2GpSk9b2/pKGbDaDIp 
>> X1Hd8418206eow1P/SgPqtT+2LzjM+lz/HKUvCyPoN4uX5/7GDExn8ir 
>> 2Q/vw81Za2nJ4Ji6oeGAmE8g6V3RJfTI0El/CP9Vl2/r0jWDZZ+wtYRA 
>> uwqvQYj+7VZc5+UJDJ3/Gne1LBnzXKnZRwnfJtZenhfZ7X20D9PiXvfJ 
>> M2s1ryqZvg8K5RqYt/r8pIiq1Udd1KWQBgdN7Q629+jNSngZQtH19R9H fM7h1w==
>> ;; Received 1097 bytes from 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) in 0 ms
>>
>> in-addr.arpa.172800  IN  NS  a.in-addr-servers.arpa.
>> in-addr.arpa.172800  IN  NS  b.in-addr-servers.arpa.
>> in-addr.arpa.172800  IN  NS  c.in-addr-servers.arpa.
>> in-addr.arpa.172800  IN  NS  d.in-addr-servers.arpa.
>> in-addr.arpa.172800  IN  NS  e.in-addr-servers.arpa.
>> in-addr.arpa.172800  IN  NS  f.in-addr-servers.arpa.
>> in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  DS  47054 8 2 
>> 5CAFCCEC201D1933B4C9F6A9C8F51E51F3B39979058AC21B8DF1B1F2 81CBC6F2
>> in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  DS  53696 8 2 
>> 13E5501C56B20394DA921B51412D48B7089C5EB6957A7C58553C4D4D 424F04DF
>> in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  DS  63982 8 2 
>> AAF4FB5D213EF25AE44679032EBE3514C487D7ABD99D7F5FEC3383D0 30733C73
>> in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  RRSIG   DS 8 2 86400 
>> 2017033000 2017031623 33786 arpa. 
>> gqNN6MmLVxFtSG0oxdyoYVSXZlp6vY9yxpnJW89TYCHfTkv+ZmklM76O 
>> IHdTznEhLHXbyr4BaxjFCshsC3WacdH/YZYa/SZynJ9Q1N6/bogrIUTn 
>> qs61Y/YD4Sk5lI7YvUxVnPrF3lk1pY8dpoTkprTLZngoeQEsm552inqG ypU=
>> ;; Received 731 bytes from 193.0.14.129#53(k.root-servers.net) in 41 ms
>>
>> 171.in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  NS  ns1.apnic.net.
>> 171.in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  NS  ns2.lacnic.net.
>> 171.in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  NS  ns3.apnic.net.
>> 171.in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  NS  ns4.apnic.net.
>> 171.in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  NS  apnic.authdns.ripe.net.
>> 171.in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  NS  apnic1.dnsnode.net.
>> 171.in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  NS  tinnie.arin.net.
>> 171.in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  DS  49699 5 1 
>> 0240801C96480900CC6D93130AF45CFE86EDE940
>> 171.in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  DS  49699 5 2 
>> 6E0BA96F05B4D39C1668979731E040213BB6130DE33E86E063B5F7F7 5C465C88
>> 171.in-addr.arpa.86400   IN  RRSIG   DS 8 3 86400 20170330042932 
>> 20170309125911 4341 in-addr.arpa. 
>> RKcPZJdG1MBrwpfa1mIK7ikIU585i1Jv+UkEBHxuM3BxxAbD+ht0W04C 
>> ljboyXJfYK8ly/YTDqNUkWKZLwDHlkq/rgNwTG63sPT8iK8qya+2qUVB 
>> iTXVsD2HaV1V/KwgJjlWHRNnlwkK0YZ5Q7tevXaq4yyLT2Q2mu5dkhFC evNQ

Re: [NOC] ARIN contact needed: something bad happens with legacy IPv4 block's reverse delegations

[Romeo Zwart]

Dear John, Bill and all,

On 17/03/17 19:31 , John Curran wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2017, at 2:17 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:14 PM, John Curran  wrote:
>>
>>> See previous reply.  The data was both correctly formatted and signed,
>>> so the agreed integrity checks passed.
>>>
>> Ah, okay. So it wasn't bad counts as originally reported but no data with
>> counts that confirmed no data. Thanks for the clarification!
> 
> Bill - 
> 
> Glad to help (and apologies for the information coming out in pieces –
> we’ve opted to go with updates as we learn more rather than some for 
> comprehensive but less timely report.) 

We have been slow to clarify this from the RIPE NCC end, for which I
apologize. As was already mentioned by Mark and John in previous
messages in this thread, the initial report from the RIPE NCC wasn't
complete, which has lead to unnecessary confusion.

A follow up message with additional detail was sent to the RIPE NCC DNS
working group list earlier today:
 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2017-March/003401.html

We hope that this clarifies matters sufficiently.

Kind regards,
Romeo Zwart
RIPE NCC

Re: [dns-wg] Global Vs local node data in www.root-servers.org

[Romeo Zwart]

Hi Anurag,

On 16 mrt. 2014, at 10:11, Anurag Bhatia mailto:m...@anuragbhatia.com>> wrote:

> Hello everyone!
>
>
> It seems like http://www.root-servers.org/index.html has been updated
> after quite sometime.

The root-servers.org  site has indeed been
updated recently. We will investigate if the mentioned data errors are
related to the change. 

> Seems like data about local Vs global for many of root servers nodes
> is incorrect.

Details of all instances, incl. global vs.  local information, are
provided directly by individual root-server operators. 

I will ask the responsible people to verify their instances' details,
and if necessary correct these, asap.

Kind regards,
Romeo 


> E.g for Netnod i root all nodes are marked as Global nodes. As far as
> I understand it means that routes announced by these nodes are
> announced to transit links as well to make routes visible globally.
> Likely that is not case here right? 
>
> Same seems with L root and few others. Do we have webmaster of the
> project on mailing list? 


>
>
> Thanks. 
>
> -- 
>
>
> Anurag Bhatia
> anuragbhatia.com 
>
> Linkedin  | Twitter
> 
> Skype: anuragbhatia.com
>
> PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2