Re: [db-wg] email's disappeared from RDAP output

On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 02:49:43PM +, Ben Cartwright-Cox via db-wg wrote: > Sadly --show-personal over whois port 43 also does not return email > for person objects: > > $ whois -h whois.ripe.net --show-personal BC6775-RIPE |& grep email: > $ Grep for 'e-mail' instead $ whois -h

Re: [db-wg] Proposal to allow non-ASCII characters in "org-name:", "person:" and "role:" attributes

Dear Edward, On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:03:15AM +0100, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote: > Currently the RIPE database only allows a subset of ASCII characters > in the "org-name:", "person:" and "role:" attributes, for a few > reasons including: > > * These attributes are also a look-up key and

Re: [db-wg] Route(6) objects

Dear Kaupo, others, (Speaking as individual working group contributor.) On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 10:06:30AM +0300, Kaupo Ehtnurm via db-wg wrote: > Since route6 object is a must and ROA is a should and they ultimately > fill the same purpose, than why isn't there a "max length" in route6 >

Re: [db-wg] recording ROV enforcement

On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 01:57:43PM +0100, Tomas Hlavacek via db-wg wrote: > This brings me to the question whether there is any structured and > machine-readable way that the networks and IXPs can use to publish > the fact that they enforce ROV? Perhaps the closest thing would be sending

Re: [db-wg] recording ROV enforcement

Dear all, Speaking as individual contributor. On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 03:36:37PM +0200, Aleksi Suhonen via db-wg wrote: > On 2/2/23 14:57, Tomas Hlavacek via db-wg wrote: > > This brings me to the question whether there is any structured and > > machine-readable way that the networks and IXPs

Re: [db-wg] RIPE-NONAUTH AS-SET bug fix

Dear all, No objection from my side. I personally think Denis’ proposal is a reasonable progression aligned with the original intent of NWI-5. As Maurice Moss (IT Crowd) famously said: “I’ll just put this over here with the rest of the fire” [1] Kind regards, Job [1]:

Re: [db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 07:11:17PM +, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote: > Careful with this, e.g. AS-NULL. There are some situations where > referencing an empty set can be useful in RPSL. For 'AS-NULL' back history see this thread:

Re: [db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects

On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 05:52:12PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Job Snijders via db-wg wrote on 20/11/2022 13:07: > > I'd argue that the rules for what constitute valid hierarchical names > > should not be changed; so the second component of the name doesn't need > > to start

Re: [db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects

Dear Denis, others, (still talking in person capacity) On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 04:00:23PM +0100, denis walker wrote: > To assist the RIPE NCC with their impact analysis can we be clear on > how you want to change the syntax. My understanding is you want rules > along these lines: > > -An AS-SET

[db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects

Dear DB-WG, Speaking in individual capacity. In RFC 2622 section 5 specifies the naming convention for AS-SET objects. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2622#section-5.1 There basically are two styles: * "short" (example: AS-SNIJDERS) * "hierarchical" (example: AS15562:AS-SNIJDERS)

Re: [db-wg] [exec-board] Recognisition of Kosovo and adding of LIR signup options with Kosovo as well as XK in inet(6)num

Dear all, William Weber, thank you for raising this issue. It seems there might be room for improvement to better serve the needs of the Kosovo internet community. I’ll ask to add the topic of recognising Kosovo in software and processes to the agenda of an upcoming executive board meeting.

Re: [db-wg] ROA and for x.509 certificate (RDAP record)

Dear Hank, On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 06:23:45PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher via db-wg wrote: > Why isn't creating an ROA proof enough that I control the address range? The extra step is needed because the ROA could also have been created by another entity attempting to BYOIP some space into a provider!

Re: [db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48

On 2022-02-25 07:48, Peter Hessler via db-wg wrote: Alternatively, I propose we *drop* the geofeed: attribute and remove it from the database. Can you motivate the suggestion? The suggestion appears like a regression to me, we both see value in “geofeed:” (provided we can actually use it),

Re: [db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Edward Shryane wrote: > Hi Job, > > > On 24 Feb 2022, at 16:31, Job Snijders wrote: > > > > Dear Ed, > > > > Thank you for the message. Apologies for nitpicking a bit more :-) > > Not at all, thank you for reviewing the details. > > > In the

Re: [db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48

Dear Ed, Thank you for the message. Apologies for nitpicking a bit more :-) On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 04:28:39PM +0100, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote: > > On 24 Feb 2022, at 13:19, Job Snijders wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 03:56:00PM +0100, Edward Shryane wrote: > >> Accordingly, we will

Re: [db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48

Hi Ed, On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 03:56:00PM +0100, Edward Shryane wrote: > Accordingly, we will allow "geofeed:" on ALLOCATED PA or top-level > ASSIGNED PI (for IPv4) and ALLOCATED-BY-RIR on top-level ASSIGNED PI > (for IPv6). For completeness sake, can you clarify which types of objects (under

Re: [db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 09:54:24AM +0100, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote: > Not doing any validation is not an option given the Legal review. Why not? Kind regards, Job -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit:

Re: [db-wg] RDAP Conformance Level "cidr0"

Dear Benjamin, The “origin as” as observed via ARIN RDAP is a difficult-to-use relic from the past. The concept of “Autonomous System Originations” pre-dates IRR and RPKI. It was the best possible solution at that time; but since then superior solutions became available. I submitted a policy

Re: [db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48

On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 10:28:04AM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote: > If people want to add geofeed for smaller sizes this runs the risk of > maintaining a dual system, "geofeed:" and "remarks: geofeed". We could > end up with "remarks:" values being parsed as they used to be for > abuse

Re: [db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48

Hi Randy, On Mon, 3 Jan 2022 at 18:19, Randy Bush via db-wg wrote: > > I appreciate concerns about privacy, but I'm not wholly convinced > > restricting /48s from having a proper 'geofeed:' attribute is the best > > path forward. > > drumroll! and the best path forward is? :) My personal

[db-wg] geofeed issue: can't add geofeed attribute to PI /48

Dear all, Like all good netizens, I tried to align information I publish in the RIPE database to reality, but there is an obstacle: https://sobornost.net/~job/geofeed.png """Adding or modifying the "geofeed:" attribute of an object with a prefix length greater or equal to 48 is not

Re: [db-wg] running in whios-circles...?

Dear all, On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 09:09:24PM +0300, Frank Habicht via db-wg wrote: > Whois directed to ripe, ripe said it's iana, iana said it's ripe > > [ BGP said . 4134 23724 45090 ] > > and . > > there's a route object in APNIC: > > [snip] > > and also "inetnum:

[db-wg] IPv6 transition mechanism prefixes (Was: Bogon cleanup -- Current anomalies)

Hello db group, On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:11:46PM +0200, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote: > According to the implementation plan: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-March/006876.html > > if these ranges are not marked as "available" or "reserved" in an > RIR's delegated stats,

Re: [db-wg] Further cleanup (was: RIPE NONAUTH route(6) objects using unregistered space cleanup - deployment *today*)

On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 10:29:42PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote on 07/07/2021 15:05: > > So 23456 is*not* excluded, but it can be if the DB-WG agrees. > > just to be clearer: AS23456 should be included in the list of ASNs which > cannot be used as the origin.

Re: [db-wg] Further cleanup (was: RIPE NONAUTH route(6) objects

On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:16:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote: > Job Snijders wrote: > >Should the database server software impose brittle restrictions > >on that field? No, not worth the headache. > > I never suggested any changes to the data base software. I think you are,

[db-wg] blocking '23456' as value for the origin attribubte in route/route6 objects?

Good news everyone, most of the work was already done! :-) On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:08:18PM +, Job Snijders via db-wg wrote: > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote: > > Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively

Re: [db-wg] Further cleanup (was: RIPE NONAUTH route(6) objects using unregistered space cleanup - deployment *today*)

Hi Working Group, I'd like to clarify my position, Ronald lists three restrictions, the totality of those restrictions is what I consider brittle. On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote: > Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively

Re: [db-wg] Further cleanup (was: RIPE NONAUTH route(6) objects using unregistered space cleanup - deployment *today*)

Hi Ronald, It is a matter of feasibility. In this context, at this layer of the technology stack it is up to the database clients to filter out information they do not consider of interest. The database is merely a conduit between an authorized internet number resource holder and the database

Re: [db-wg] RIPE NONAUTH route(6) objects using unregistered space cleanup - deployment *today*

Hi all, On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 06:18:11PM +0200, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote: > Hi Denis, > > > On 30 Jun 2021, at 22:48, denis walker wrote: > > ... > > Ed, have any of these ROUTE(6) objects been created recently? > ... > > Here are the 72 route objects in the RIPE database referencing

Re: [db-wg] Issue creating new AS-SET

On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 02:29:17PM +0200, Denis Fondras via db-wg wrote: > I am trying to add a new AS-SET but I get an error : > > as-set: Syntax error in AS201376:AS-MEMBERS:DIRECT > > AS201376:AS-MEMBERS already exists in the database. > > I cannot see what I do wrong here. Can anybody help

Re: [db-wg] Route objects for space administered by other RIRs

Dear Erik, On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:00:52PM +0400, Erik Linder via db-wg wrote: > is there a need for the ROA object to be identical in length to the route > object? > > take 41.213.128.0/21 is a RIPE-NOAUTH route object and there is a > valid ROA from AFRINIC for 41.213.128.0/17 max length 24

Re: [db-wg] Role of RIPE NCC in geofeed, abuse-c checks, etc

Hi Denis, On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:55:32AM +0200, denis walker via db-wg wrote: > I don't see the issue of what, if anything, should be validated as a > show stopper for introducing the "geofeed:" attribute. This is my idea > of utilising the RIRs to improve the value of services with increased

Re: [db-wg] Role of RIPE NCC in geofeed, abuse-c checks, etc

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:27:13PM +0200, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote: > > On 8 Apr 2021, at 13:54, Randy Bush via db-wg wrote: > > > >> Could we consider creating an NWI with a reduced scope? > > > > as an exercise, how minimal can we get? > > Given the draft RFC: >

Re: [db-wg] New NWI for geofeed?

Thanks for the extensive note Denis, thanks Cynthia for being first-responder. I wanted to jump in on a specific subthread. On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 06:38:29PM +0200, Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote: > > Questions: > > > -Should the database software do any checks on the > >

Re: [db-wg] Fwd: proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:

Dear Maria, On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 09:21:53AM +0100, Maria Stafyla via db-wg wrote: > Thank you for your patience in this matter. > > We looked into this and the answer varies depending on the situation. > > Allocations and assignments can be made to either natural or legal > persons. In the

Re: [db-wg] proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:'

Dear DB-WG chairs, Today an acquaintance (who works at an ISP) reached out to me describing some annoying Geo IP location issues they were facing. I thought to myself "didn't we have a solution to such issues?" and was reminded of this thread. Chairs, how do we proceed to work towards the

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

Hi, On Sun, Nov 08, 2020 at 11:30:03PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote: > As Job said it is at an early discussion stage. If we do this using > the NWI mechanism then the Problem statement and then a Solution > definition will be discussed on the mailing list by anyone with an > interest in

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote: > I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of > NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem > statement? Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject so far... maybe

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

Dear group, I think NWI-9 needs to be reworded, it in part has been over taken by current events. Rereading https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2019-April/006236.html what is described there actually already has completed. RIPE NCC's NRTM servers are open to the public (this was not

Re: [db-wg] proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:'

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 04:50:43PM +0200, Horváth Ágoston János via db-wg wrote: > You are aware you ignored 90% of my points and picked a single one out of > my email? Correct. The rest of the email is interesting but directly related to the contents of a geofeed file, which is a discussion more

Re: [db-wg] proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:'

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 03:43:33PM +0200, Horváth Ágoston János wrote: > An interesting proposal, but merging an external data set with RIPE > Database arises some questions: > > - RIPE Database is set up to contain hierarchical data already. With this > proposal, we would take some of this data

Re: [db-wg] NWI reviews: NWI-6 Applicable data model not clear from contextless objects

Dear Denis, group, On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 01:13:15PM +, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > This is the last of the NWIs from 4 years ago > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-June/005272.html > > For this one I am not even sure what is being asked for and I don't > agree with

Re: [db-wg] proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:'

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 06:31:11AM +, Lutz Donnerhacke via db-wg wrote: > > By enriching the RPSL dictionary and having a “geofeed” RPSL attribute > > (which by the way should not be mandatory) Indeed, it is not mandatory. > > will be easier for someone to extend his parser to use that

[db-wg] proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:'

Dear DB-WG, Some colleagues are working to address the never-ending-story of 'where the heck are IPs geographically?'. This problem space has been brought up numerous times in the Database Working Group, but we never managed to solve it. As with all compsci problems adding a layer of indirection

Re: [db-wg] NWI reviews: NWI-3 - Afrinic IRR Homing

Dear Nick, On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 09:15:11PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Job Snijders via db-wg wrote on 30/09/2020 21:07: > > I agree. The combination of NWI-5 and RIPE-731 obsoleted NWI-3. > > > > There is nothing left for RIPE to further improve here. RIPE-

Re: [db-wg] NWI reviews: NWI-3 - Afrinic IRR Homing

Dear colleagues, I agree. The combination of NWI-5 and RIPE-731 obsoleted NWI-3. There is nothing left for RIPE to further improve here. RIPE-NONAUTH is slowly and steadily decreasing in size. AFRINIC resource holders have all the tools available to publish their routing intentions in either

Re: [db-wg] mntner with misleading primary key

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020, at 19:06, Cynthia Revström wrote: > I was not suggesting it, I think it is a bad idea, but I interpreted > the following as Job suggesting it. > > I think a mandatory "-MNT" or "MNT-" or "-MAINT" is helpful because the > > maintainers primary key string does pop up from

Re: [db-wg] mntner with misleading primary key

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020, at 20:52, Gert Doering wrote: > On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 07:36:53PM +0200, Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote: > > I am not sure how feasible the mandatory "-mnt" would be at this point tbh. > > I can easily think of at least 2 maintainers that are actually used that I > > see

Re: [db-wg] mntner with misleading primary key

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020, at 20:34, Tom Hill via db-wg wrote: > On 01/07/2020 18:43, Matthias Merkel via db-wg wrote: > > I have looked through the database files and there seem to be exactly 26 > > maintainer objects that are named as an ASN (without any prefixes or > > suffixes). I think the best

Re: [db-wg] mntner with misleading primary key

Dear Tom, On Wed, Jul 1, 2020, at 16:16, Tom Hill via db-wg wrote: > Unless of course, parsing/filtering before insertion (thus augmenting > the database's table natural design restrictions) is not something Good > To Do. Database design definitely isn't my primary skill. > > Saying that, I have

Re: [db-wg] RIPE DB Route Object fails creation

On 11/06/2020 03:26, ripedenis--- via db-wg wrote: > If there is an existing, exact matching ROUTE object the creation of the > new ROUTE object must be authorised by the existing object. There is a > flow chart here explaining the sequence of checks: >

Re: [db-wg] RIPE-NONAUTH to RIPE for IANA anycast prefixes?

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 09:04:58AM +0200, Aleksi Suhonen via db-wg wrote: > On 06/01/2020 16:26, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote: > > The RIPE NCC Database team have now implemented the 2018-06 proposal > > (now ripe-731), "RIPE NCC IRR Database Non-Authoritative Route > > Object Clean-up". > >

Re: [db-wg] AUT-NUM authorization on ROUTE(6) objects

Dear Sander, That doc need updating. Good find! Kind regards, Job On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 18:18 Sander Steffann via db-wg wrote: > Hi, > > I was looking at > >

Re: [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:31 PM Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote: > > Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote on 28/05/2019 12:12: > > Unfortunately, no cleanup was done when this rule was implemented, > > but in recent times we try to do this. I will also contact the > > maintainers of these route objects

Re: [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking

Hi Jens, Can you share the exact example? I'd like to understand what type of data validity error your are pointing to. Kind regards, Job On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:08 PM Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH via db-wg wrote: > > Dear DB-WG, > > I am newly subscribed to this mailing-list although I am

Re: [db-wg] Whois Release Process

Hi, I’d prefer that we don’t restrict the NCC in deploying bug fixes. If there is a zero day security issue, the NCC should be able to patch immediately and inform the community afterwards. A 24h period would never be enough anyway to do meaningful testing. Robustness must be resolved elsewhere

Re: [db-wg] In-band notification mechanism?

On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 12:51:52PM +, ripede...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > You seem to now be suggesting that a form of NRTM for only routing > information (IRR data) and open to anyone without a contract would > satisfy what you are looking for. Yes. > I thought NRTM is a pull mechanism not a

Re: [db-wg] In-band notification mechanism?

In order to provide the most value to RIPE NCC's members, I'd argue that we need to remove ALL the paperwork e.g. allow any IP address to set up a NRTM stream for the purpose of mirroring IRR objects that contain routing information: route/route6/route-set/as-set. NTT is mirroring the RIPE

Re: [db-wg] In-band notification mechanism?

Dear Aris, Did you consider consuming a NRTM feed? That’s an approach that already exists. Kind regards, Job On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 19:22 Aris Lambrianidis via db-wg wrote: > Hi Denis, > > We, and other IXPs, create filters (prefix-lists) for services such as > route servers, by parsing

Re: [db-wg] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks

Hi Töma, The concerns you raise seem to be out of scope for the Database Working Group - I'm not sure cross-posting multiple lists will advance the discussion in a meaningful way. Perhaps it would be good to continue the dialogue exclusively in APWG. Kind regards, Job On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at

Re: [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 18:30 Randy Bush via db-wg wrote: > > Alex - just create the route object in the correct database. > > no impure genetics in the ripe database. they should live in theit own > neighborhoods! I don’t understand what you intend to convene to the working group. Genetics

Re: [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 16:35 Alexander Azimov via db-wg wrote: > There is only one good thing about mistakes - if you can fix it. > Here if one fails to properly configure ROAs it may lead to ongoing > operational problems, that can't be fixed even after fixing ROAs, since > RIPE-NONAUTH

Re: [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects

Dear Nick, On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:21:00PM +0200, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 15 Oct 2018, at 13:00, Job Snijders wrote: > > > > If we deconstruct RIPE-NONAUTH’s current state of affairs we already > > are facing a irreversible concept: if one deletes an object in > > RIPE-NONAUTH, it can

Re: [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 12:52 Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 15 Oct 2018, at 11:31, Job Snijders wrote: > > > > I'm hesitant to add such things because we don't have such a > > notification & grace period in BGP Origin Validation process when > > processing BGP route announcements either. > > You

Re: [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 10:27:28PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > There's no need for a new proposal: a notification mechanism and a > grace period can be built into either the proposal or else the > operating procedure. > > Some of these old route objects have been there for many years. > Another

Re: [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 11:32:44AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Job Snijders wrote on 14/10/2018 07:48: > > When an operator makes a mistake, they've made a mistake. > > > When someone needs to create multiple ROAs, but only publishes one - it > > is an operator error. When one misconfigures

Re: [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects

Hi, On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:34 PM Randy Bush via db-wg wrote: > > once a route/route6 object in RIPE-NONAUTH becomes in conflict with a > > RPKI ROA it should no longer exist. > > and once a route/route6 object in the ripe irr instance comes in > conflict with a roa published anywhere in the

Re: [db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects

Dear Nick, On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 10:38:12PM +0100, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote: > Marco Schmidt via db-wg wrote on 11/10/2018 14:18: > > We just published the RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-06, "RIPE NCC IRR > > Database Non-Authoritative Route Object Clean-up", to the Routing > > Working Group

Re: [db-wg] Implementation plan and time line for NWI5 - Out-of-region ROUTE(6) objects and removal of ASN authorisation for ROUTE(6) object creation.

Dear all, > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 04:26:04PM +0200, Nathalie Trenaman via db-wg wrote: > > On Tuesday, 4 September, we will make changes to the way > > out-of-region objects are handled in the RIPE Database, as directed > > by the RIPE Database Working Group. > > > > [snip] Speaking as NRTM

[db-wg] remove bogon prefixes in the RIPE IRR NON-AUTH DB?

Dear WG, I'd like to raise the issue of bogon prefixes in the RIPE IRR, and ask RIPE NCC to remove all "bogon" route object registrations from the "RIPE-NONAUTH" IRR database. Today I was made aware of this example: $ whois -h whois.ripe.net -- "-Troute6 2001:db8::/32" | egrep -v "%|^$"

Re: [db-wg] Implementation plan and dates for NWI5 - Out-of-region ROUTE(6) objects and removal of ASN authorisation for ROUTE(6) object creation.

Dear Nathalie, On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:18:37PM +0200, Nathalie Trenaman via db-wg wrote: > We will implement these changes in the Release Candidate environment > on Thursday, 2 August and go to full production on Tuesday, 4 > September. > > Our implementation plan can be found at: >

Re: [db-wg] IRRd re-write

Denis, I am very surprised by your statements. To be honest your email seems quite detached from reality so it is somewhat hard to formulate a coherent response. I'll try to explain this as simple as possible: the users of IRRd (you clearly are not one of them) have come to realise that the

Re: [db-wg] A test on AFRINIC range announcing without RIPE route object

Hi all, On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:37 PM, Lu Heng via db-wg wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 22:16 denis walker via db-wg wrote: >> >> Lu, the point being made is that RIPE (community, working groups, chairs, >> NCC) have no authority to change policies or procedures in the AFRINIC >> region. If

Re: [db-wg] A test on AFRINIC range announcing without RIPE route object

Dear Denis, On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:58 PM, denis walker via db-wg wrote: > My current understanding is that AFRINIC does not refuse to create a ROUTE > simply because you do not own the foreign ASN. They may do some additional > checks, but if everything is in order they will permit the ROUTE

Re: [db-wg] A test on AFRINIC range announcing without RIPE route object

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 09:39:52AM -0700, Randy Bush via db-wg wrote: > [ off list ] this was not offlist. > isps need the irr-based filtering 'telcoms' to use all the irr > instances, as small emerging economy isps can not afford radb and will > soon not be able to use ripe. so the attackers

Re: [db-wg] A test on AFRINIC range announcing without RIPE route object

Dear Denis, On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:45:24AM +, denis walker wrote: > >> In conclusion, If you employ a non-Afrinic asn for announcements > >> (which means a foreign asn), using RIPE’s route object will be the > >> only choice for you unless you are one of those big telecoms which > >> has

Re: [db-wg] A test on AFRINIC range announcing without RIPE route object

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Lu Heng wrote: > Internet is one, and this is a general problem of all Afrinic space, just > don’t make it personal please. I didn't intend to make anything personal, so phrased differently: What you highlight is ultimately a problem between AfriNIC members and

Re: [db-wg] A test on AFRINIC range announcing without RIPE route object

Dear Lu, On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 06:19:10PM +0800, Lu Heng via db-wg wrote: > In the past three weeks, we have done some tests on 3 AFRINIC /24 > which have been announced in the US, Europe, and Asia, by an ARIN ASN, > APNIC ASN, and an RIPE ASN. > > Test results: > > If it is a direct announce

Re: [db-wg] comment on comment at mic: database "purpose" vs not-globally-routed prefixes

I agree with Sandra. Some prefixes are only used in very local scope (many IXP peering lan prefixes for example), there still needs to be contact data On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Sandra Murphy via db-wg wrote: > (Sorry about this. typed the comment into the chat window,

Re: [db-wg] Weird IRR entry

Sigh that should not be there On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 20:34, Brian Rak via db-wg wrote: > Seems like this shouldn't have been allowed to be created: > > route6: 2001:db8::/32 > origin: AS10 > mnt-by: EJU > created:2018-02-18T06:45:59Z >

Re: [db-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Out-of-Region ROUTE(6) and AUT-NUM Objects in the RIPE Database

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 04:36:18PM +0200, Antony Gollan via db-wg wrote: > In a new article on RIPE Labs, Denis Walker provides some context around the > changes being made to the way out-of-region objects are managed and > represented in the RIPE Database: >

Re: [db-wg] NWI-5 Out of region ROUTE(6)/AUT-NUM objects implementation request

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:59:22PM +0900, Randy Bush via db-wg wrote: > >> This can be a separate effort. However, what I did not mention > >> earlier is that we probably should disallow the creation of new > >> out-of-region AUT-NUM objects if they are no longer required to > >> authorise

Re: [db-wg] NWI-5 Out of region ROUTE(6)/AUT-NUM objects implementation request

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 12:04:59PM +0100, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > > On 5 Dec 2017, at 11:07, Job Snijders wrote: > > > > ps. I'd leave the 'clean up out-of-region AUT-NUMs' for a separate > > discussion on how to handle that data. Combining datamodel changes > > and governance of

Re: [db-wg] NWI-5 Out of region ROUTE(6)/AUT-NUM objects implementation request

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:17:09AM +, denis walker wrote: > Unless it has been modified recently there is the reclaim > functionality that will allow the resource holder to delete the > ROUTE(6) object > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/reclaim-functionality-for-resource-holders > But this

Re: [db-wg] NWI-5 Out of region ROUTE(6)/AUT-NUM objects implementation request

Hi Tim, Denis, On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:33:10PM +, denis walker via db-wg wrote: > I just noticed the comment below:"In case of inter-RIR transfers of > live networks, ROUTE(6) objects are sometimes preserved for the > transferred prefix(es). If so, they will be moved between the ‘RIPE’ >

Re: [db-wg] Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal

Dear Bill, On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 05:40:39PM +, William Sylvester via db-wg wrote: > At the RIPE75 in Dubai, the working group chairs committed to > presenting a proposal for revising the chair selection process and > general housekeeping of the Database working group. This was motivated >

Re: [db-wg] Creation of out of region ROUTE(6) objects

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:01:33AM +, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote: > denis walker via db-wg wrote: > > The question we now need to answer is...Do we want to allow the > > creation of new ROUTE(6) objects in the RIPE Database for non RIPE > > address space? > > I would prefer not. I agree,

Re: [db-wg] NRTM replication inefficiencies

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 03:10:28PM +0100, Edward Shryane wrote: > > On 8 Dec 2017, at 13:51, Job Snijders wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:56:11PM +0100, Edward Shryane wrote: > >> We could also add an 'end-of-stream' comment in keep-alive mode, > >> something like '%END

Re: [db-wg] NRTM replication inefficiencies

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:56:11PM +0100, Edward Shryane wrote: > We could also add an 'end-of-stream' comment in keep-alive mode, > something like '%END (starting serial) - (ending serial)', which is > output after any backlog of updates. Yeah, that would be useful. Is this easy low hanging

Re: [db-wg] NWI-5 Out of region ROUTE(6)/AUT-NUM objects implementation request

Deqr all, RIPE NCC's understanding of the requested solution is in agreement with my own understanding. The NCC has identified the requested changes as a simplification which is always good news. The suggestion to deprecate "mnt-routes:" is a good one, and should be followed. Based on RIPE NCC's

Re: [db-wg] Proxy proposal large communities

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:21:05AM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Job Snijders via db-wg wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Mark Prior <m...@mrp.net> wrote: > >> In this particular case I would suggest that you do want the tool to > >> complain rather

Re: [db-wg] Proxy proposal large communities

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Mark Prior wrote: > On 13/11/17 21:36, Job Snijders wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Mark Prior wrote: >>> In this particular case I would suggest that you do want the tool to >>> complain rather than ignore the new

Re: [db-wg] Proxy proposal large communities

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Mark Prior wrote: > In this particular case I would suggest that you do want the tool to > complain rather than ignore the new rp-attribute. Why would you break backwards compatibility?

Re: [db-wg] Proxy proposal large communities

On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 at 15:17, Mark Prior via db-wg wrote: > Wouldn't it be better to just change the definition of community in the > RPSL dictionary so that a community of + ":" + ":" > + is valid and then have the tools either barf if they don't > understand or do "the right

Re: [db-wg] Getting fraudulent entries removed

lete the ROUTE object. > > cheers > denis > co-chair DB WG > > > ---------- > *From:* Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> > *To:* Brian Rak <b...@choopa.com> > *Cc:* db-wg@ripe.net > *Sent:* Thursday, 9 November 2017, 17:5

Re: [db-wg] Getting fraudulent entries removed

Dear Brian, It appears that RIPE NCC is lacking a clear and expedient procedure to remedy unauthorised route object creation. I'd be happy to volunteer to work with the RIPE NCC to develop a procedure that aligns with industry standards on how to verify abuse reports like these and resolve them

[db-wg] NRTM replication inefficiencies

Dear all, There may be some improvement opportunity for NRTMv3. The problem with the RIPE NRTMv2/NRTMv3 format is that it has no 'end-of-stream' indicator, thus making the only way to know that the output has ended (vs. hung/stalled/server dead) is either by observing a time-out & reconnect &

Re: [db-wg] new NWI? - was: mntner object updates by mail

Dear Denis, On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 2:08 PM, den is via db-wg wrote: > Putting together several points from today: > > -dropping ASN auth for ROUTE creation > -wanting to know as precisely as possible who made a change > -updating MNTNER objects by email > -previous discussions

Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 05:18:55PM +, Randy Bush via db-wg wrote: > > 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source: > > RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data. > > why not go the other, more positive, direction, and identify authorised > data with RIPE-AUTH or

Re: [db-wg] DB signatures

--- Begin Message --- Thanks Tim! --- End Message ---

  1   2   >