I think it's about addressing abuse. If there's "bad things coming
in", one usually addresses the source IP address, not the source AS.
Also, one can move a prefix to another AS, but the ownership would
stay the same until returned to RIPE.
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Job Snijders via db-wg
Dear Sandra,
Thank you for this overview. You have cleared some of the mists of time
and I am appreciative for that.
It appears that over time, the 'root' of the conceptual model shifted
from the AS holder to the IP space holder. Interesting.
Kind regards,
Job
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 07:37:47
> On Oct 17, 2017, at 4:08 PM, den is via db-wg wrote:
>
> Hi Colleagues
>
> Rob is correct, option 1 has been proposed before and it was opposed.
> Whilst neither supporting nor opposing anyone's views let me ask a
> couple of questions. I think these questions need addressing even if
> it is
>> why not go the other, more positive, direction, and identify authorised
>> data with RIPE-AUTH or whatever? no need to be pejorative.
>
> s/RIPE-NONAUTH/RIPE-OTHERRIR/
can there be cases where the source is not an rir? rfc1918 for example?
s/RIPE-NONAUTH/JOB-HATES/ :)
randy
Randy Bush via db-wg wrote:
> why not go the other, more positive, direction, and identify authorised
> data with RIPE-AUTH or whatever? no need to be pejorative.
s/RIPE-NONAUTH/RIPE-OTHERRIR/
Nick
status and
role can be understood.
-George
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 9:23 AM, William Sylvester via db-wg
wrote:
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: William Sylvester
> To: Database WG
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:22:55 +0000
> Subject: Re: [d
Hi Denis,
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:08:56PM +0200, den is via db-wg wrote:
> Rob is correct, option 1 has been proposed before and it was opposed.
I am not sure 'opposed' is the correct word, throughout some of these
processes trajectories, the lack of feedback proved to be a major
obstacle.
>
Hi Colleagues
Rob is correct, option 1 has been proposed before and it was opposed.
Whilst neither supporting nor opposing anyone's views let me ask a
couple of questions. I think these questions need addressing even if
it is just to quote some historic facts and dismiss them. It's always
good to
DB WG
From: Job Snijders via db-wg
To: den is
Cc: Database WG
Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 10:06
Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
Dear Denis,
Just to make sure we are on the same page, the 2 items presented by Bill
are not two mut
> 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 whatever? no need to be pejorative.
>>>
>>> This is not me
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 05:34:13PM +, Randy Bush 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
>>> 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 whatever? no need to be pejorative.
>
> This is not meant to be pejo
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 wha
> 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 whatever? no need to be pejorative.
randy
Hi,
1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently
the only RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates
data concurrency issues across Internet databases by requiring the
creation of duplicate autnums.
2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space w
--- Begin Message ---
* den...@gmail.com (den is) [Tue 17 Oct 2017, 03:02 CEST]:
3) Consider possible, simple options to allow non RIPE resource
holders to 'approve' (if not authorise) the creation of a foreign
ROUTE object.
This is cumbersome in practice already. Options 1 and 2 would lessen
--- Begin Message ---
Daniel Shaw via db-wg wrote:
> On 17/10/2017, 03:24, William Sylvester via db-wg typed:
>> >
>> >
>> > 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently the
>> > only RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates data
>> > concurrency is
--- Begin Message ---
On 17/10/2017, 03:24, William Sylvester via db-wg typed:
>
>
> 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently the only
> RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates data concurrency
> issues across Internet databases by requiring
ester
> CC: Database WG
> Onderwerp: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final
> decision?
>
> Dear WG, chairs,
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:24:14PM +, William Sylvester via db-wg wrote:
> > Now that there has been substantial discussion on this topic, I
--- Begin Message ---
I agree and support both 2 mentioned items.
Erik Bais
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Job Snijders [mailto:j...@instituut.net]
Verzonden: dinsdag 17 oktober 2017 9:53
Aan: William Sylvester
CC: Database WG
Onderwerp: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE
--- Begin Message ---
I agree and support both 2 mentioned items.
Erik Bais
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Job Snijders [mailto:j...@instituut.net]
Verzonden: dinsdag 17 oktober 2017 9:53
Aan: William Sylvester
CC: Database WG
Onderwerp: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE
--- Begin Message ---
Dear Denis,
Just to make sure we are on the same page, the 2 items presented by Bill
are not two mutually exclusive options, I think both need to be done.
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 01:04:08AM +, den is via db-wg wrote:
> 3) Consider possible, simple options to allow non R
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
Op 17 okt. 2017, om 09:53 heeft Job Snijders via db-wg het
volgende geschreven:
> These two options represent what currently is the lowest hanging fruit
> to improve in this problem space. Funny enough, neither of these items
> makes things more difficult for anyone inv
--- Begin Message ---
Dear WG, chairs,
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:24:14PM +, William Sylvester via db-wg wrote:
> Now that there has been substantial discussion on this topic, I wanted
> to try to bring the conversation back to a more practical and
> actionable path forward. Clearly this is a
--- Begin Message ---
On 11/10/2017, 18:22, Saschatyped:
>
>
>> Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects for non
>> RIPE resources?
This question has to be split into two to be able to be answered.
Part 1: Should RIPE DB allow creation of route/route6 objects whe
--- Begin Message ---
On 11/10/2017, 17:48, Nick Hilliard via db-wg typed:
>
>
> Job Snijders wrote:
>> I think this touches upon an incredibly important question: how do we
>> distinguish between garbage and properly authenticated "route:"
>> objects covering RIPE-managed space?
>
> and more
cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB WG
>
>
> On 17 October 2017 at 01:23, William Sylvester via db-wg
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: William Sylvester
> > To: Database WG
> > Cc:
> > Bcc:
> > D
- Forwarded message --
> From: William Sylvester
> To: Database WG
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:22:55 +0000
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
> Db-wg members,
>
> Now that there has been substantial discuss
--- Begin Message ---
Db-wg members,
Now that there has been substantial discussion on this topic, I wanted to try
to bring the conversation back to a more practical and actionable path forward.
Clearly this is a topic where there are a lot of opinions. From seeing the
discussion and receiving
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:00:55PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 02:46:54PM +0100, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote:
> > Job Snijders wrote:
> > > I think this touches upon an incredibly important question: how do
> > > we distinguish between garbage an
6:04 +0000
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
>
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 at 16:52, Sascha Luck [ml] via db-wg
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:30:06AM -0300, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
>> >IMHO, any idea that starts
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 at 16:52, Sascha Luck [ml] via db-wg
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:30:06AM -0300, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> >IMHO, any idea that starts with “Let´s create a central X” is doomed from
> the start.
> >
> >We must think along other lines.
>
> Maybe "
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:30:06AM -0300, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
IMHO, any idea that starts with ???Let??s create a central X??? is doomed from
the start.
We must think along other lines.
Maybe "central" was the wrong word to use. Think a DB that every
RIR provides a
Cc: Database WG
Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database -
final decision?
Date: October 11, 2017 at 11:21 AM
--- Begin Message ---
Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> How does this fact falsify the fact that cross-RIR route: objects
> exist? Those have to be in *some* irrdb and as long as a
> cross-RIR irrdb doesn't exist, part of the data will be
> non-authenticated...
it doesn't say anything about cross-RIR rout
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 02:49:39PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects for non
RIPE resources?
Is an option D: create a central IRRDB with authentication hooks
into all RIRs completely out of the questi
--- Begin Message ---
> Also, what would the distinguisher be for eg. a route: with prefix
> from RIPE and ASN from ARIN?
thanks to the inability to inter-region transfer as-nums, that is
exactly my situation :)
randy
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 02:46:54PM +0100, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote:
Job Snijders wrote:
I think this touches upon an incredibly important question: how do we
distinguish between garbage and properly authenticated "route:"
objects covering RIPE-managed space?
and more
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 09:53:35PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Sascha Luck [ml] via db-wg wrote:
Not allowing
"foreign" resources in the ripedb denies the reality that there
will always be RIPE-allocated prefixes originated from
non-RIPE-assigned ASNs and vice versa.
Not
--- Begin Message ---
Job Snijders wrote:
> I think this touches upon an incredibly important question: how do we
> distinguish between garbage and properly authenticated "route:"
> objects covering RIPE-managed space?
and more to the point: are there good reasons and community support for
continu
g wrote:
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Daniel Shaw
> To: Database WG
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:27:56 +0400
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
> On 11/10/2017, 14:09, Job Snijd
--- Begin Message ---
On 11/10/2017, 14:09, Job Snijders via db-wgtyped:
> You
> as network operator can easily poll the APNIC or AFRINIC database.
> There are even a number of "IRR aggregation services" such as NTTCOM
> and RADB which mirror a ton of IRRs for your querying convenience.
Witho
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Nick Hilliard
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: Database WG
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:16:41 +0100
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIP
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Randy,
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Randy Bush via db-wg wrote:
> From: Randy Bush
> To: Nick Hilliard
> Cc: Database WG
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:26:34 +0900
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
>>
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Piotr Strzyzewski via db-wg
wrote:
> From: Piotr Strzyzewski
> To: Database WG
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:50:45 +0200
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
> On Mon, Oct 09, 201
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:43:13PM +0200, Gert Doering via db-wg wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:48:43PM +0200, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
> > Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects for non
> > RIPE resources?
>
> I wonder if this is the r
--- Begin Message ---
Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects
for non RIPE resources?
>>
>> yes
>
> then how can we use the traditional irrdb to distinguish between address
> blocks which have been authenticated by the ripe ncc and those which
> have not.
as
--- Begin Message ---
Randy Bush via db-wg wrote:
>> > Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects
>> > for non RIPE resources?
>
> yes
then how can we use the traditional irrdb to distinguish between address
blocks which have been authenticated by the ripe ncc and those w
--- Begin Message ---
> But this time we do need numbers.
voting, eh?
> Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects
> for non RIPE resources?
yes
randy
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 18:33 Sander Steffann via db-wg
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > In any case, given that we have no proper global registry, and we have
> > lots of cross-region routes ("addresses from RIR A, AS number from RIR
> B"),
> > we need to find a way to document these pro
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
> In any case, given that we have no proper global registry, and we have
> lots of cross-region routes ("addresses from RIR A, AS number from RIR B"),
> we need to find a way to document these properly.
My preference would be to start such a global registry. I would love
--- Begin Message ---
Sascha Luck [ml] via db-wg wrote:
> Not allowing
> "foreign" resources in the ripedb denies the reality that there
> will always be RIPE-allocated prefixes originated from
> non-RIPE-assigned ASNs and vice versa.
Not true - you can easily run a whois query on whois.radb.net s
--- Begin Message ---
Clement Cavadore via db-wg wrote:
> That one, but with a *strong* enhancement on a trust model for such
> objects. We just cannot simply allow non-ripe route objects to be
> inserted in the db without any legitimity checks.
there is no way which non-ripe route objects can be
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:48:43PM +0200, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
> Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects for non
> RIPE resources?
I wonder if this is the right question to ask, or we should step back
and ask the question
what ca
--- Begin Message ---
On 09/10/2017 18:22, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
C
-Hank
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
personal opinion: I don't care as a programmer.
company's opinion: A - all our network resources are routed solely
through our RIPE-AutNum.
--
velia.net Internetdienste GmbH * Hessen-Homburg-Platz 1 * D-63452 Hanau
Geschäftsführer: Franz G. Köhler, Arek Akilli * AG Hanau *
--- Begin Message ---
Hello Denis, WG
On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 15:49 +0200, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
> A: Yes the RIPE Database should allow creation of ROUTE objects for
> non RIPE resources. If this is the answer then we can look at how to
> make the data more trusting in the short term (and t
--- Begin Message ---
Denis,
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 02:49:39PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE
objects for non RIPE resources?
A: Yes the RIPE Database should allow creation of ROUTE objects
for non RIPE resources. If this is the
--- Begin Message ---
A
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 21:48 denis walker via db-wg wrote:
> Colleagues
>
> This has been discussed many times with many views expressed. We are sure
> lots of you are bored with commenting on this issue. Unfortunately no
> consensus has yet been found. So we would like t
59 matches
Mail list logo
