This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
Proposed change 2004.1: extended route creation rules

Previous message (by thread): Proposed change 2004.1: extended route creation rules
Next message (by thread): Proposed change 2004.1: extended route creation rules
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Frank Bohnsack Frank.Bohnsack at deu.mci.com
Mon Feb 16 17:29:33 CET 2004
> -----Original Message-----
> From: routing-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:routing-wg-admin at ripe.net]On
> Behalf Of Engin Gunduz
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:53 PM
> To: Frank Bohnsack
> Cc: Joao Damas; routing-wg at ripe.net; db-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: Proposed change 2004.1: extended route creation rules
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On 2004-02-09 22:29:37 +0100, Frank Bohnsack wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: routing-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:routing-wg-admin at ripe.net]On
> > > Behalf Of Joao Damas
> > > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:55 PM
> > > To: Engin Gunduz
> > > Cc: routing-wg at ripe.net; db-wg at ripe.net; Frank Bohnsack
> > > Subject: Re: Proposed change 2004.1: extended route creation rules
> > > ...
> > > if this is, as stated, a rare event, would it not be better to have
> > > this be dealt with via a request to ripe-dbm?
> > > You can implement a Perl snippet that does the checks you describe
> > > without polluting the general DB code with what feels like a kludge.
> >
> > Thats probably right for the moment and as far as I can remember this
> > came to pass maybe 10 or 15 times in the last 2 years (for AS702).
>
> Hm, this is more than I expected in fact (10-15  cases for a single ASN)
> even if this is a quite big autonomous system.  I remember dealing
> with one of these, but have you sent the others to ripe-dbm at ripe.net as
> well, or just gave up trying to create them (as it would take ripe-dbm some
> time to figure out what's going on;)).

The 10-15 means, we have 10-15 routes of aggregated customer ("PI") space
(different customer owned blocks which could be aggregated) which are mostly
not documented any where and therefore dont break security issues in the
RIPE DB.

Frank

>
> Is there anybody else in the mailing lists who encountered similar cases?
>
> Regards,
> -engin
>
>
> Engin Gunduz
> RIPE NCC Software Engineering Department
>
>
> > I think this will be more and more important in the near future and
> > we should be prepared for it. Further I believe it would increase the
> > user acceptance of routing registries and push tools such as IRRToolSet.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > >
> > > Joao
> > >
> > > On 9 Feb, 2004, at 15:07, Engin Gunduz wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear colleagues,
> > > >
> > > > [apologies for duplicate mails]
> > > >
> > > > Some time ago, Frank brought an issue regarding route object
> > > > aggregation to our attention in the DB-WG mailing list.  Please
> > > > see the short thread at:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/2003/msg00474.html
> > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/2003/msg00475.html
> > > >
> > > > We have prepared a proposal to extend the route object creation
> > > > rules to resolve this issue.  However, the resulting proposal
> > > > turns out to be quite complex as it builds on the current route
> > > > object creation rules, which are already complex enough.
> > > >
> > > > Considering that the need for route object aggregation is encountered
> > > > very rarely, it might not be worth implementing it.  After the
> > > > deployment of version 3 of our whois software, we have seen only a
> > > > couple of such cases.  In those cases, we have resolved the issue by
> > > > applying the rules that we specify below manually.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to ask the working groups if they think this proposal
> > > > is too complex.  Implementing it would not be a problem technically,
> > > > but I'm more concerned about explaining the complex rules properly
> > > > to the users of the whois database.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards, and thanks for your time,
> > > > --
> > > > Engin Gunduz
> > > > RIPE NCC Software Engineering Department
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =============================================================
> > > > A PROPOSAL FOR EXTENDED ROUTE OBJECT CREATION RULES
> > > >
> > > > This document is about being able to create route objects that
> > > > aggregate inetnums/route objects.  This is needed where a user
> > > > cannot merge two or more inetnum objects into one larger inetnum
> > > > object, but still needs to create a route object that aggregates
> > > > these inetnum objects.  This is seen especially with assigned PI
> > > > inetnum objects.
> > > > A hypothetical example:  Suppose there exist the following two
> > > > inetnums in the whois database:
> > > >
> > > > inetnum: 12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255
> > > > netname: EXAMPLE-PI
> > > > descr:   Example Banking PLC
> > > > admin-c: AA1-RIPE
> > > > status:  ASSIGNED PI
> > > >
> > > > inetnum: 12.0.1.0 - 12.0.1.255
> > > > netname: ANOTHER-EXAMPLE-PI
> > > > descr:   Anotherexample Printing Industries NV
> > > > admin-c: ZZ1-RIPE
> > > > status:  ASSIGNED PI
> > > >
> > > > These are assigned to different end-users.  Further suppose that
> > > > they coincidentally take service from the same Internet Service
> > > > Provider.  The Internet Service Provider will want to aggregate these
> > > > two assignments into a single 12.0.0.0/23 route to be announced,
> > > > rather than announcing two separate prefixes, in order to keep the
> > > > number of prefixes in routing tables to the minimum.  However, the
> > > > Internet Provider will not be able to create a single route object in
> > > > the RIPE Routing Registry which implements RPSSec RFC (RFC2725). This
> > > > is because the inetnum object that contains the 12.0.0.0/23 prefix
> > > > will be
> > > >
> > > > inetnum:      12.0.0.0 - 12.9.255.255
> > > > netname:      EU-ZZ-000000
> > > > descr:        block for PI assignments
> > > > descr:        maintained by RIPE NCC
> > > > country:      EU
> > > > remarks:      These addresses are assigned
> > > >               to network operators. The RIPE NCC
> > > >               does not operate any networks using
> > > >               address space from this block.
> > > >               An explanation of how to find the
> > > >               correct contacts is available at
> > > >               <http://www.ripe.net/nicdb.html>
> > > > admin-c:      CREW-RIPE
> > > > tech-c:       CREW-RIPE
> > > > tech-c:       OPS4-RIPE
> > > > status:       ALLOCATED PI
> > > > mnt-by:       RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
> > > > mnt-lower:    RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
> > > > changed:      hostmaster at ripe.net 20030731
> > > > source:       RIPE
> > > >
> > > > Note the "mnt-lower:" attribute that has RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT.
> > > > See http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/faq/database/qa4.html#5 for
> > > > a graphical representation of the current route object creation rules.
> > > >
> > > > Proposal:
> > > >   To address this problem, we need to extend the route object creation
> > > > rules
> > > > so that it would be possible to create a route object that takes its
> > > > authorisation from a collection of route and/or inetnum objects that
> > > > are
> > > > more specific than the route object to be created.  As the situation is
> > > > quite rare, the 'extended' behaviour can be activated by using the
> > > > keyword
> > > > 'EXTENDED-ROUTE-CREATION' in the subject line of the update message or
> > > > with
> > > > the syncupdates.  The extended behaviour is not the default behaviour.
> > > >
> > > > The Algorithm:
> > > >   The proposed algorithm to authorise the route object creation is:
> > > >
> > > >   Check if the keyword was used.  If not, proceed with normal route
> > > > creation rules
> > > >     as described in RFC2725
> > > > (http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/faq/database/qa4.html#5)
> > > >   Check if there is an exact match route object or an exact match
> > > > inetnum object
> > > >     If there is one, then proceed with normal route creation rules
> > > > even if the
> > > >     keyword was specified.
> > > >   Find the inetnums/routes that can be used for route creation:
> > > >       Get a list of all inetnums and route objects that are one level
> > > > more
> > > >       specific than the route object to be created. (-r
> > > > -Troute,inetnum -m <prefix>)
> > > >       From this list, eliminate the inetnums that have exact match or
> > > > less specific
> > > >         route objects. (Note: During route object creation, the
> > > > existing route
> > > >         objects take precedence over existing inetnum objects).
> > > >       Check if the resulting set of inetnums/routes cover the whole
> > > > space of
> > > >         the route to be created.  If not, authorisation fails, hence
> > > > creation attempt
> > > >         fails.
> > > >       Collect the mntners to be used during the authorisation check.
> > > > Follow these
> > > >       rules:
> > > >         For each object in the set, check if there are "mnt-routes:"
> > > > attributes in
> > > >           the object.  If there are, they will be used.  If there are
> > > > not, the mntners
> > > >           that are mentioned in "mnt-by:" attributes will be used.
> > > >       Check the authorisation: During the authorisation, the mntners
> > > > in the same object
> > > >         will be ORed, while the mntners in separate objects will be
> > > > ANDed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Example 1:
> > > >
> > > > Suppose we have these inetnums in the database:
> > > >
> > > > inetnum:    0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255
> > > > status:     ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED
> > > > mnt-by:     RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
> > > > mnt-lower:  RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
> > > > mnt-routes: RIPE-NCC-NONE-MNT
> > > >
> > > > inetnum:    12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255
> > > > status:     ALLOCATED PI
> > > > mnt-by:     RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
> > > > mnt-lower:  RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
> > > >
> > > > inetnum:    12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255
> > > > netname:    EXAMPLE-PI
> > > > descr:      Example Banking PLC
> > > > admin-c:    AA1-RIPE
> > > > status:     ASSIGNED PI
> > > > mnt-by:     MNT-EXAMPLE-PI
> > > >
> > > > inetnum:    12.0.1.0 - 12.0.1.255
> > > > netname:    ANOTHER-EXAMPLE-PI
> > > > descr:      Anotherexample Printing Industries NV
> > > > admin-c:    ZZ1-RIPE
> > > > status:     ASSIGNED PI
> > > > mnt-by:     MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-BY
> > > > mnt-routes: MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-ROUTES
> > > > mnt-routes: MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-ROUTES-2
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is also this aut-num object:
> > > >
> > > > aut-num:    AS65534
> > > > mnt-by:     MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-BY
> > > > mnt-routes: MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-ROUTES
> > > >
> > > > There are no route objects that are in 12.0.0.0/23 space,
> > > > or less specific of 12.0.0.0/23.
> > > >
> > > > The user wants to create the following route object:
> > > >
> > > > route:  12.0.0.0/23
> > > > origin: AS65534
> > > > mnt-by: MNT-ROUTE
> > > >
> > > > When the creation is attempted without the keyword
> > > > 'EXTENDED-ROUTE-CREATION,'
> > > > the whois software will try to get the IP space authentication from
> > > > inetnums,
> > > > as no related route object exists.  The one level less specific
> > > > inetnum is
> > > > 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255, which has the attribute "mnt-lower:
> > > > RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT".
> > > > As the user does not have access to the authorisation for
> > > > RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
> > > > mntner, the creation attempt will fail.
> > > >
> > > > When the creation is attempted with the keyword
> > > > 'EXTENDED-ROUTE-CREATION':
> > > > - There are no exact match route or inetnum objects, so proceed with
> > > >     extended route creation rules.
> > > > - to get the authorisation from IP space, the whois software will
> > > > perform
> > > >     '-r -Troute,inetnum -m 12.0.0.0/23' query, which will return
> > > >
> > > > inetnum:    12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255
> > > > inetnum:    12.0.1.0 - 12.0.1.255
> > > >
> > > > - there are no inetnums to be eliminated from the list.
> > > > - the resulting set of inetnums/routes (it actually has two inetnums
> > > >    and no routes) covers the whole space of 12.0.0.0/23.
> > > > - collect the mntners to be used in the authorisation process.
> > > >    from the aut-num: MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-ROUTES
> > > >    from the route object itself that will be created: MNT-ROUTE
> > > >    from the IP space: (MNT-EXAMPLE-PI AND
> > > >                        (MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-ROUTES OR
> > > > MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-ROUTES-2))
> > > >      12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255 does not have "mnt-routes:", so "mnt-by:"
> > > > must
> > > >      be used.
> > > >      12.0.1.0 - 12.0.1.255 has two "mnt-routes:", so they both must be
> > > > used,
> > > >      but they must be ORed.
> > > > -  the resulting mntner list:
> > > >      (
> > > >       MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-ROUTES AND MNT-ROUTE AND
> > > >       (
> > > >        MNT-EXAMPLE-PI AND
> > > >        (
> > > >         MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-ROUTES OR
> > > > MNT-ANOTHEREXAMPLE-MNT-ROUTES-2
> > > >        )
> > > >       )
> > > >      )
> > > >
> > > > Example 2:
> > > >
> > > > Suppose there are these inetnums in the database:
> > > >
> > > > inetnum:    0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255
> > > > mnt-by:     RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
> > > > mnt-lower:  RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
> > > > mnt-routes: RIPE-NCC-NONE-MNT
> > > >
> > > > inetnum:    12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255
> > > > mnt-by:     RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
> > > > mnt-lower:  RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
> > > >
> > > > inetnum:    12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255
> > > > mnt-routes: MNT-INETNUM-1
> > > >
> > > > inetnum:    12.0.1.0 - 12.0.1.255
> > > > mnt-routes: MNT-INETNUM-2
> > > >
> > > > and the following route objects:
> > > >
> > > > route:      12.0.1.0/24
> > > > origin:     AS65534
> > > > mnt-routes: MNT-ROUTE-1
> > > >
> > > > route:      12.0.2.0/23
> > > > origin:     AS6
> > > > mnt-routes: MNT-ROUTE-2
> > > >
> > > > route:      12.0.2.0/23
> > > > origin:     AS65534
> > > > mnt-routes: MNT-ROUTE-3
> > > > mnt-routes: MNT-ROUTE-4
> > > >
> > > > and this aut-num:
> > > >
> > > > aut-num:    AS65534
> > > > mnt-by:     MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-BY
> > > > mnt-routes: MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-ROUTES
> > > >
> > > > The user wants to create the following route object:
> > > >
> > > > route:  12.0.0.0/22
> > > > origin: AS65534
> > > > mnt-by: MNT-ROUTE
> > > >
> > > > When the creation is attempted without the keyword
> > > > 'EXTENDED-ROUTE-CREATION,'
> > > > the whois software will try to get the IP space authentication from
> > > > inetnums,
> > > > as no related route object exists.  The one level less specific
> > > > inetnum is
> > > > 12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255, which has "mnt-lower:  RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT"
> > > > attribute.
> > > > As the user does not have access to the authorisation for
> > > > RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
> > > > mntner, the creation attempt will fail.
> > > >
> > > > When the creation is attempted with the keyword
> > > > 'EXTENDED-ROUTE-CREATION':
> > > > - There are no exact match route or inetnum objects, so proceed with
> > > >     extended route creation rules.
> > > > - to get the authorisation from IP space, the whois software will
> > > > perform
> > > >     '-r -Troute,inetnum -m 12.0.0.0/22' query, which will return
> > > >
> > > > inetnum:    12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255
> > > > inetnum:    12.0.1.0 - 12.0.1.255
> > > > route:      12.0.1.0/24
> > > > route:      12.0.2.0/23  (origin AS6)
> > > > route:      12.0.2.0/23  (origin AS65534)
> > > >
> > > > - eliminate the inetnums with less specific or exact match route
> > > > objects
> > > >    in the list.  The resulting list will be:
> > > >
> > > > inetnum:    12.0.0.0 - 12.0.0.255
> > > > route:      12.0.1.0/24
> > > > route:      12.0.2.0/23  (origin AS6)
> > > > route:      12.0.2.0/23  (origin AS65534)
> > > >
> > > > - the resulting list covers the whole 12.0.0.0/22 space.  Continue.
> > > > - Collect the mntners to be used during the authorisation check.
> > > >    from the aut-num: MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-ROUTES
> > > >    from the route object itself that will be created: MNT-ROUTE
> > > >    from the IP space: (MNT-INETNUM-1 AND MNT-ROUTE-1 AND
> > > >                        (MNT-ROUTE-2 AND (MNT-ROUTE-3 OR MNT-ROUTE-4)))
> > > >
> > > > -  the resulting mntner list:
> > > >      (
> > > >       MNT-AUT-NUM-MNT-ROUTES AND MNT-ROUTE AND
> > > >       (
> > > >        (
> > > >         MNT-INETNUM-1 AND MNT-ROUTE-1 AND
> > > >         (
> > > >          MNT-ROUTE-2 AND
> > > >          (
> > > >           MNT-ROUTE-3 OR MNT-ROUTE-4
> > > >          )
> > > >         )
> > > >        )
> > > >       )
> > > >      )
>
>
>
Previous message (by thread): Proposed change 2004.1: extended route creation rules
Next message (by thread): Proposed change 2004.1: extended route creation rules
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ routing-wg Archives ]