From huberman at gblx.net Wed Apr 4 15:58:26 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:58:26 -0700 (MST) Subject: Ticketing system Message-ID: Hello Ginny et al., Can you please discuss ARIN's plans, if any, for replacing the MTS ticketing system? If there are plans, when is MTS scheduled for decommission? Thanks /david *--------------------------------* | Global Crossing IP Engineering | | Manager, Global IP Addressing | | TEL: (908) 720-6182 | | FAX: (703) 464-0802 | *--------------------------------* From ginny at arin.net Fri Apr 6 13:20:14 2001 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:20:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Ticketing system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David, Engineering intends on replacing the current ticketing system. However, it will not happen this year. We know that it needs to be replaced and have been discussing options with RSG. As far as where it stands in the priority list in a later phase of conversion, we haven't really decided. When we are close to being done with Phase I, we will decide which items have the highest priority. Ginny On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, David R Huberman wrote: > Hello Ginny et al., > > Can you please discuss ARIN's plans, if any, for replacing the MTS > ticketing system? If there are plans, when is MTS scheduled for > decommission? > > Thanks > > /david > > *--------------------------------* > | Global Crossing IP Engineering | > | Manager, Global IP Addressing | > | TEL: (908) 720-6182 | > | FAX: (703) 464-0802 | > *--------------------------------* > From ginny at arin.net Fri Apr 27 14:47:41 2001 From: ginny at arin.net (ginny listman) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:47:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Reassignment Proposal Message-ID: Tanya, Since this is more a question of where ARIN should invest resources in developing, and less a policy issue, I would like to move the discussion to the dbwg list. Developing a IRR-like mechanism to monitor reassignments is an excellent idea, and should be discuss further. As you recall, at the Member Meeting, members clearly expressed the desire for ARIN to invest resources in "fixing" RWHOIS. We have done some initial analysis, and we would completely rewrite it, most likely using PERL. Before Engineering proceeds, I would like to take a survey of what reassigment method the membership would most likely use. We can then apply resources accordingly. The choices are: SWIP RWHOIS IRR like method All three have pluses and minuses. Ideally we would like to see a single method that would allow for the maintenance of reassignment information at either the ISP or at ARIN. Realistically, we would need a method to maintain data centrally (SWIP), and a method to maintain data local (RWHOIS, or something else). Of course, the more responses received will give us a better sense of what the membership wants. Ginny Listman Director of Engineering American Registry for Internet Numbers On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tanya Hinman wrote: > Lee, > > Thanks for your feedback and yes our responses would be in RPSL. > We did discuss RWHOIS briefly at the last ARIN meeting in San Francisco. > Most people wanted to see the code upgraded and there was a suggestion that > ARIN take that responsibility. I am unsure of what the outcome of that > suggestion was though. Talks of RWHOIS and the code upgrade have been going > on for a few years now, but it appears that no one wants the job of > upgrading the code. > > Tanya > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee Howard [mailto:lhoward at UU.NET] > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 2:40 PM > To: Tanya Hinman > Cc: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: Reassignment Proposal > > > I've been thinking along similar lines for a while. Presumable, eveyone > has a database of their IP allocations (for some people, this database > is a spreadsheet or spiral-bound notebook). Trying to keep that database > in sync with the IRR (whether ARIN, RADB, or internal) and SWIP is > difficult, and distributing data queries to the database of record makes > a lot of sense to me. Much like DNS, come to think of it. > > Would you provide responses in RPSL? > > I seem to recall ARIN announcing the publication of RWHOIS output > requirements, but I can't find them (or anything about RWHOIS) on the > ARIN site map. RWHOIS is on the agenda for 4/4/2000 Public Policy > Meeting, but my meeting notes don't have anything more specific. In > fact, there are no meeting minutes on ARIN's site for that meeting. > > I'm all in favor of a combined RWHOIS/IRR responder. > > Lee Howard > > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tanya Hinman wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:44:32 -0400 > > From: Tanya Hinman > > To: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Reassignment Proposal > > > > > > We would like to propose the creation of a third reassignment option in > > conjunction with the current SWIP and RWHOIS options. As companies expand > > globally, it would be much simpler for them to update WHOIS data in their > > own one Registry rather than the three RIRs. We would like to create our > own > > WHOIS database within our Routing Registry. This would be similar to the > way > > RIPE represents WHOIS information along with their Routing Registry, and > it > > would be in place of a stand alone RWHOIS database which some of the other > > ISP's are currently using. > > > > 1)If this is accepted by all three RIRs it would be very efficient and it > > may help to relieve some of the load from the RIR's. > > 2)If the RIRs were to Mirror the WHOIS data from ours/other ISPs' > > Registries, it would also allow queries from the RIRs registries rather > than > > referencing the customer's URL like the current RWHOIS reference. > > 3)It would be much easier to update and keep data accurate if all the data > > is managed using the same database. > > 4)Guidelines for the format of this WHOIS option will need to be set in > > order to implement a standard. > > > > Thank you, > > Tanya Hinman > > Cable & Wireless > > > > From richardj at arin.net Fri Apr 27 15:24:40 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:24:40 -0400 Subject: FW: RWHOIS Message-ID: <001101c0cf4f$b5723260$edfc95c0@arin.net> > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Kosters [mailto:markk at netsol.com] > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 2:51 PM > To: Richard Jimmerson > Cc: 'Muir, Ronald'; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: RWHOIS > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:26:34PM -0400, Richard Jimmerson wrote: > > ARIN has determined taking over the future support and > > development of RWHOIS may require a complete rewrite > > of the software. There has also been some discussion on > > this list about the possibility of a third reassignment > > option. Ginny Listman will be moving this discussion over > > to the dbwg at arin.net mailing list. > > I don't think it needs a complete rewrite. I do however think that > the db stuff on the backside needs to be replaced with mysql, > oracle, or > something else. People can use different tools to update and > display info > that resides on their database other than using rwhois or cumbersome > text editing that is prone to error. > > Mark From richardj at arin.net Fri Apr 27 15:41:18 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:41:18 -0400 Subject: FW: RWHOIS Message-ID: <001601c0cf52$081a8ec0$edfc95c0@arin.net> > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > Behalf Of Mark > Kosters > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:11 PM > To: Shane Kerr > Cc: Muir, Ronald; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: RWHOIS > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 04:55:45PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > > The new RIPE Whois server, in production since April 23, is Much > > Improved(tm). Currently it only supports referrals for > several types of > > records - network allocations (inetnum) are not among them. > It would > > probably be a lot less work to add this capability than to > maintain two > > seperate database interfaces. Perhaps ARIN should pursue > this as a goal > > instead of taking on maintaining RWhois? After all, the RIPE Whois > > server is very actively maintained. ;) > > I'm glad to hear that RIPE has improved their database. > > Personally, I'd like to see the data distributed and not reliant on > a box (or boxes) that have to chase referrals for the > distributed info to > send back to the client. We do this at the Verisign > registrar for the > gtld whois stuff and it is non-trivial. Resources to do this > at fairly high > volume rates is pretty expensive. > > Work is on-going to replace this creaky system. I hate to see > ARIN follow > this model and caught a couple of years from now with volumes > that they > may not want to be able to sustain*. > > Regards, > Mark > > *there have been proposals from various types of vendors to > use the whois > data from ARIN et al to improve their services (legit ones - > not spammers). > Someday they may do so. I hope that we can create the right sort of > infrastucture to make it happen without a lot of pain. > > -- > > Mark Kosters markk at netsol.com Verisign > Applied Research > PGP Key fingerprint = 1A 2A 92 F8 8E D3 47 F9 15 65 80 87 > 68 13 F6 48 From richardj at arin.net Fri Apr 27 15:44:58 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:44:58 -0400 Subject: RWHOIS In-Reply-To: <20010427151104.C12342@slam.admin.cto.netsol.com> Message-ID: <001701c0cf52$8aba31a0$edfc95c0@arin.net> Thank you for participating in this discussion. Please direct your future messages on this subject to the dbwg at arin.net mailing list. -Richard Jimmerson > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On > Behalf Of Mark > Kosters > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 3:11 PM > To: Shane Kerr > Cc: Muir, Ronald; ppml at arin.net > Subject: Re: RWHOIS > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 04:55:45PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > > The new RIPE Whois server, in production since April 23, is Much > > Improved(tm). Currently it only supports referrals for > several types of > > records - network allocations (inetnum) are not among them. > It would > > probably be a lot less work to add this capability than to > maintain two > > seperate database interfaces. Perhaps ARIN should pursue > this as a goal > > instead of taking on maintaining RWhois? After all, the RIPE Whois > > server is very actively maintained. ;) > > I'm glad to hear that RIPE has improved their database. > > Personally, I'd like to see the data distributed and not reliant on > a box (or boxes) that have to chase referrals for the > distributed info to > send back to the client. We do this at the Verisign > registrar for the > gtld whois stuff and it is non-trivial. Resources to do this > at fairly high > volume rates is pretty expensive. > > Work is on-going to replace this creaky system. I hate to see > ARIN follow > this model and caught a couple of years from now with volumes > that they > may not want to be able to sustain*. > > Regards, > Mark > > *there have been proposals from various types of vendors to > use the whois > data from ARIN et al to improve their services (legit ones - > not spammers). > Someday they may do so. I hope that we can create the right sort of > infrastucture to make it happen without a lot of pain. > > -- > > Mark Kosters markk at netsol.com Verisign > Applied Research > PGP Key fingerprint = 1A 2A 92 F8 8E D3 47 F9 15 65 80 87 > 68 13 F6 48 From rmuir at pathnet.net Fri Apr 27 15:46:07 2001 From: rmuir at pathnet.net (Muir, Ronald) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:46:07 -0400 Subject: RWHOIS Message-ID: Let's continue the discussion on the dbwg list. I think Mark's suggestion has a lot of merit. A whole new database architecture is probably the best solution, that way everyone can develop there own client - or use an existing client - to perform updates and query's. This appears to also be a project that will need input from the AC as well as the members. Can we set a deadline for submittal of all input so that we can move forward with this. I would hate to see this be an open ended discussion going on and on ... and on ... I suggest that 60 days for comment and a predetermined period for the AC to provide it's input and then let's get started. Ron ------------------------------------------------- Ron Muir Director, Operations Development Pathnet, Inc. rmuir at pathnet.net 703-390-2820 From huberman at gblx.net Fri Apr 27 16:07:31 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:07:31 -0700 (MST) Subject: Reassignment Proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Before Engineering proceeds, I would like to take a survey of what > reassigment method the membership would most likely use. We can then > apply resources accordingly. The choices are: > > SWIP > RWHOIS > IRR like method GBLX will continue to use SWIP but runs its own IRR and would eventually transfer reassignment records to the IRR were ARIN to accept Tanya's proposal. /david From joe.provo at rcn.com Fri Apr 27 16:20:02 2001 From: joe.provo at rcn.com (Joe Provo) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:20:02 -0400 Subject: Reassignment Proposal In-Reply-To: ; from huberman@gblx.net on Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:07:31PM -0700 References: Message-ID: <20010427162002.A84724@ultra.net> [snip] > Before Engineering proceeds, I would like to take a survey of what > reassigment method the membership would most likely use. We can then > apply resources accordingly. The choices are: > > SWIP > RWHOIS > IRR like method IRR would be ideal, improved RWHOIS otherwise. Nothing is perfect, so I'm not saying RIPE is, but one can observe that the RIPE combined RR and allocation database acts to provided two pressures on the costituents to keep the data clean. Given a stronger correlation between address allocation data and routing registry data, hijacks and other forms of misuse would be more readily detected as well. Cheers, Joe -- Joe Provo Voice 508.486.7471 Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax 508.229.2375 Network Deployment & Management, RCN From linda at sat-tel.com Fri Apr 27 16:25:29 2001 From: linda at sat-tel.com (Linda) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:25:29 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: Reassignment Proposal] Message-ID: <3AE9D5B8.F4DCFFEC@sat-tel.com> Good Afternoon All, I prefer to use SWIP for reassignments/allocations. We do not use RWHOIS but are in favor of upgrading the code. Would the proposed IRR-like mechanism be able to work in conjunction with swip? I don't see the majority agreeing to use a single method. Linda Werner ginny listman wrote: > Tanya, > > Since this is more a question of where ARIN should invest resources in > developing, and less a policy issue, I would like to move the discussion > to the dbwg list. > > Developing a IRR-like mechanism to monitor reassignments is an excellent > idea, and should be discuss further. As you recall, at the Member > Meeting, members clearly expressed the desire for ARIN to invest resources > in "fixing" RWHOIS. We have done some initial analysis, and we would > completely rewrite it, most likely using PERL. > > Before Engineering proceeds, I would like to take a survey of what > reassigment method the membership would most likely use. We can then > apply resources accordingly. The choices are: > > SWIP > RWHOIS > IRR like method > > All three have pluses and minuses. Ideally we would like to see a single > method that would allow for the maintenance of reassignment information at > either the ISP or at ARIN. Realistically, we would need a method to > maintain data centrally (SWIP), and a method to maintain data local > (RWHOIS, or something else). Of course, the more responses received will > give us a better sense of what the membership wants. > > Ginny Listman > Director of Engineering > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tanya Hinman wrote: > > > Lee, > > > > Thanks for your feedback and yes our responses would be in RPSL. > > We did discuss RWHOIS briefly at the last ARIN meeting in San Francisco. > > Most people wanted to see the code upgraded and there was a suggestion that > > ARIN take that responsibility. I am unsure of what the outcome of that > > suggestion was though. Talks of RWHOIS and the code upgrade have been going > > on for a few years now, but it appears that no one wants the job of > > upgrading the code. > > > > Tanya > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lee Howard [mailto:lhoward at UU.NET] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 2:40 PM > > To: Tanya Hinman > > Cc: ppml at arin.net > > Subject: Re: Reassignment Proposal > > > > > > I've been thinking along similar lines for a while. Presumable, eveyone > > has a database of their IP allocations (for some people, this database > > is a spreadsheet or spiral-bound notebook). Trying to keep that database > > in sync with the IRR (whether ARIN, RADB, or internal) and SWIP is > > difficult, and distributing data queries to the database of record makes > > a lot of sense to me. Much like DNS, come to think of it. > > > > Would you provide responses in RPSL? > > > > I seem to recall ARIN announcing the publication of RWHOIS output > > requirements, but I can't find them (or anything about RWHOIS) on the > > ARIN site map. RWHOIS is on the agenda for 4/4/2000 Public Policy > > Meeting, but my meeting notes don't have anything more specific. In > > fact, there are no meeting minutes on ARIN's site for that meeting. > > > > I'm all in favor of a combined RWHOIS/IRR responder. > > > > Lee Howard > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Tanya Hinman wrote: > > > > > Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:44:32 -0400 > > > From: Tanya Hinman > > > To: ppml at arin.net > > > Subject: Reassignment Proposal > > > > > > > > > We would like to propose the creation of a third reassignment option in > > > conjunction with the current SWIP and RWHOIS options. As companies expand > > > globally, it would be much simpler for them to update WHOIS data in their > > > own one Registry rather than the three RIRs. We would like to create our > > own > > > WHOIS database within our Routing Registry. This would be similar to the > > way > > > RIPE represents WHOIS information along with their Routing Registry, and > > it > > > would be in place of a stand alone RWHOIS database which some of the other > > > ISP's are currently using. > > > > > > 1)If this is accepted by all three RIRs it would be very efficient and it > > > may help to relieve some of the load from the RIR's. > > > 2)If the RIRs were to Mirror the WHOIS data from ours/other ISPs' > > > Registries, it would also allow queries from the RIRs registries rather > > than > > > referencing the customer's URL like the current RWHOIS reference. > > > 3)It would be much easier to update and keep data accurate if all the data > > > is managed using the same database. > > > 4)Guidelines for the format of this WHOIS option will need to be set in > > > order to implement a standard. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Tanya Hinman > > > Cable & Wireless > > > > > > > From shane at time-travellers.org Sat Apr 28 05:31:03 2001 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:31:03 +0200 Subject: RWHOIS In-Reply-To: <20010427145113.B12342@slam.admin.cto.netsol.com>; from markk@netsol.com at 2001-04-27 14:51:13 +0000 References: <000701c0cf47$97d1a360$edfc95c0@arin.net> <20010427145113.B12342@slam.admin.cto.netsol.com> Message-ID: <20010428113102.A26341@mars.lab.time-travellers.org> On 2001-04-27 14:51:13 +0000, Mark Kosters wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:26:34PM -0400, Richard Jimmerson wrote: > > ARIN has determined taking over the future support and development > > of RWHOIS may require a complete rewrite of the software. There has > > also been some discussion on this list about the possibility of a > > third reassignment option. Ginny Listman will be moving this > > discussion over to the dbwg at arin.net mailing list. > > I don't think it needs a complete rewrite. I do however think that the > db stuff on the backside needs to be replaced with mysql, oracle, or > something else. People can use different tools to update and display > info that resides on their database other than using rwhois or > cumbersome text editing that is prone to error. Having looked through the code, I can say that Mark is right - there's not a definite need for a complete rewrite. In addition to changing the backside, the front-end will probably need to be revisited as well. The current fork & exec model of the ARIN Whois server works well because the client interface is extremely simple, and the database is very tightly optimized for the specific query patterns. But the RWhois service does not share these properties. I suggest that you'd probably want (in order of effeciency): 1. stacks of computers for your fork/exec server 2. a multithreaded process 3. an event-driven single process I do think it is a bad idea to maintain two seperate databases that do effectively the same thing. For instance, the Whois and RWhois servers maintain seperate limits on the number of results returned - but in different locations and with different semantics. No need to discuss the obvious disadvantages of this duplication, I think. Shane From shane at time-travellers.org Sat Apr 28 05:51:00 2001 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:51:00 +0200 Subject: RWHOIS In-Reply-To: <20010427151104.C12342@slam.admin.cto.netsol.com>; from markk@netsol.com at 2001-04-27 15:11:04 +0000 References: <20010427165541.A20499@mars.lab.time-travellers.org> <20010427151104.C12342@slam.admin.cto.netsol.com> Message-ID: <20010428115059.B26341@mars.lab.time-travellers.org> On 2001-04-27 15:11:04 +0000, Mark Kosters wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 04:55:45PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote: > > The new RIPE Whois server, in production since April 23, is Much > > Improved(tm). Currently it only supports referrals for several types of > > records - network allocations (inetnum) are not among them. It would > > probably be a lot less work to add this capability than to maintain two > > seperate database interfaces. Perhaps ARIN should pursue this as a goal > > instead of taking on maintaining RWhois? After all, the RIPE Whois > > server is very actively maintained. ;) > > I'm glad to hear that RIPE has improved their database. Believe me, so am I! > Personally, I'd like to see the data distributed and not reliant on a > box (or boxes) that have to chase referrals for the distributed info > to send back to the client. We do this at the Verisign registrar for > the gtld whois stuff and it is non-trivial. Resources to do this at > fairly high volume rates is pretty expensive. True... > Work is on-going to replace this creaky system. I hate to see ARIN > follow this model and caught a couple of years from now with volumes > that they may not want to be able to sustain*. It is still possible to write a client that follows referrals under the RIPE database. Sending a "-R" before the query tells the server not to follow referrals. In this manner, the client can see the record that documents the referral and follow it without the server's help. The RIPE server already supports an SQL backend (MySQL), is multithreaded, has a sophisticated dynamic rate limiting functionality, and works with plain-old Whois (POW?) clients. In all likelyhood, it is going to be used by at least 3 of the 5 pending RIR's (RIPE NCC, APNIC, and LACNIC - not too sure about AFRINIC, but I suspect they'll use it as well). It doesn't have some of the cooler features of RWhois, like querying the schema, and it has a lot of design cruft from olden days (the maintainer mechanism springs immediately to mind). I guess in my mind from the user point of view, there's no difference between an RWhois server that follows referrals and a Whois server that follows referrals. The only real difference would be if the server was like the Internic Whois server and didn't follow referrals at all, in which case the client would have to do the work. As it is, either RWhois or Whois can function in that manner as well. But from the ISP point of view, they may prefer to *run* the RWhois server, because it requires less investment in installation. There's nothing to prevent a Whois referral from ARIN going to an RWhois server, of course.... Shane From shane at time-travellers.org Sun Apr 29 02:59:28 2001 From: shane at time-travellers.org (Shane Kerr) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:59:28 +0200 Subject: [Fwd: Reassignment Proposal] In-Reply-To: <3AE9D5B8.F4DCFFEC@sat-tel.com>; from linda@sat-tel.com at 2001-04-27 16:25:29 +0000 References: <3AE9D5B8.F4DCFFEC@sat-tel.com> Message-ID: <20010429085927.A1157@mars.lab.time-travellers.org> On 2001-04-27 16:25:29 +0000, Linda wrote: > Good Afternoon All, > > I prefer to use SWIP for reassignments/allocations. We do not use > RWHOIS but are in favor of upgrading the code. Would the proposed > IRR-like mechanism be able to work in conjunction with swip? I don't > see the majority agreeing to use a single method. I suppose it depends on what you mean by SWIP. ;) IRR servers typically operate in the same fashion as SWIP. That is, they have an e-mail address you send mail to that runs a program to automatically process your changes. Obviously, the format of the mail is different from SWIP, because the IRR is intended largely as a routing registry, so is usually in RIPE-181 or RPSL format. Also, while a large percentage of SWIP mail ends up being rejected and hand processed, a typical IRR processes 100% of database changes through automatic software. While this may seem a bit scary, the software is designed to provide (more or less) meaningful error responses, and there is always an e-mail address you can send questions to. Perhaps the easiest course of action would be to write a SWIP-to-(insert other format) converter if some IRR software was being considered. Shane