[ARIN-consult] NEW Consultation: Available Methods of Reporting Network Sub-Delegation Information
Andrew Dul
andrew.dul at quark.net
Fri Oct 13 14:39:31 EDT 2017
My interpretation of this is that we clearly have a operational problem
with rwhois services. Even taking the less strict test of 39% active,
this would mean that almost the equivalent of 7 IPv4 /8s under rwhois
have no operational reassignment or reallocation records currently
available. rwhois isn't a priority for organizations because those who
use it are often not-customers, and there is no revenue from providing
this service. Is this all the protocol's fault, no, but making the data
more accessible, visible, and useful would make keeping rwhois or rdap
distributed servers up and operational more important when people see
lookup failures.
There is no simple answer here, but I believe as a community we can and
should do better.
Andrew
On 10/13/2017 7:18 AM, John Sweeting wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
>
>
> Here is the information for your set of questions below:
>
>
>
> 1) Number of orgs with an rwhois server on any of their records
>
>
>
> There are 778 orgs with resources with rwhois servers. Of those,
>
> 610 are unique. For clarification, rwhois servers are attributes of
> Orgs in the ARIN
>
> database.
>
>
>
> 2) Number of IPv4 and IPv6 blocks with a rwhois server on the record
>
>
>
> a) For IPv6, the number is 2044
>
> b) For IPv4, the number is 8563
>
>
>
> 3) Number of /24 IPv4 equivalents covered by the above records
>
>
>
> There are 638799 IPv3 /24 equivalents covered by the above records.
>
>
>
> 4) Number of /32 equivalents covered by above records
>
>
>
> There are 23385 IPv6 /32 equivalents covered by the above networks.
>
>
>
> 5) Total number of unique rwhois servers
>
>
>
> See 1, there are 610
>
>
>
> 6) Percent of rwhois servers which are online (complete a tcp connection
>
> accept a string and respond with some text)
>
>
>
> 39% of servers in 1.b
>
>
>
> 7) Percent of rwhois server who appear to respond with a valid record
>
> for an address within each allocated block.
>
>
>
> 86% of servers in 6
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *ARIN-consult <arin-consult-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of
> Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> *Reply-To: *"andrew.dul at quark.net" <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> *Date: *Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 4:35 PM
> *To: *"arin-consult at arin.net" <arin-consult at arin.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [ARIN-consult] NEW Consultation: Available Methods of
> Reporting Network Sub-Delegation Information
>
>
>
> I'm writing to support the sunsetting of the rwhois protocol as a
> method for ARIN members to document reallocation and reassignment
> records.
>
> That doesn't mean this year or next year, but I believe we should set
> a timeline for deprecating this protocol. Perhaps a date of 2022
> would be reasonable. (Yes, some organizations will not do the work
> despite the 4 years of time to do it, but a shorter time frame would
> also be unacceptable to some)
>
> I have seen those who have posted on this consultation noting that
> "rwhois works and isn't broken so don't fix it." While I will agree
> that it is "technically" not broken, I believe that it is
> operationally broken.
>
> These are some of the reasons why I believe we should move on to
> something better. Any by better, I mean moving to records stored in
> the ARIN database (SWIP) or RDAP.
>
> -Rwhois doesn't support encryption or data-integrity during transport
> -There is no automatic referral, so when most people query ARIN whois
> they don't know there is potentially another more specific record and
> even if they are aware, how to do rwhois is not "easy" for many
> users. Yes its easy for engineers and some operators, but there are
> many users of "whois" data for whom this is a barrier too high. Could
> we invest in lots of training for rwhois, yes, but we will always be
> behind on this as long as its not a click away for most users.
> -As was noted in the most recent ARIN meeting, law enforcement
> agencies use whois data as a source for their investigations and other
> work, and having accurate records available on a timely basis is very
> important to them. I don't believe that rwhois data is as accessible
> and available as data in the ARIN database.
> -RDAP was designed with referral in mind from the ground up, so that
> you get all the records no matter where they are located with a single
> query.
> -ARIN (in possible collaboration with other RIRS) should develop an
> RDAP package for those who like to host their own, distributed
> database. The new package should support bulk retrieval of records to
> assist in data collection and analysis. (Also it was noted in the
> most recent ARIN meeting that there are differences today in how the
> different RIRs are reporting fields/data via RDAP. It would be good
> for the RIRs in collaboration with each other and other organizations
> that want to run RDAP servers for IP number resources to work to
> create a standard met of fields which are required for IP number
> resource records, along with other optional fields for additional data)
>
> It has been noted casually that there are many rwhois servers which
> are down or aren't available. I believe this also contributes to this
> data set being operationally unavailable.
>
> I'd like to ask if ARIN staff can confirm some of these details with
> data from the ARIN's database and operational practices. Specifically
> if ARIN could provide the following details about how rwhois is being
> operated today I believe it would inform the community in this
> consultation process.
>
> 1) Number of orgs which have IPv4 or IPv6 resources and a rwhois
> record on their org-id.
>
> 2) Number of IPv4 and IPv6 blocks with a rwhois server under the
> org-id records
>
> 3) Number of /24 IPv4 equivalents covered by the above records
>
> 4) Number of /32 IPv6 equivalents covered by the above records
>
> 5) Total number of unique rwhois servers
>
> 6) Percent of rwhois servers which are online (complete a tcp connection
> accept a string and respond with some text)
>
> 7) Percent of rwhois server who appear to respond with a valid record
> for an address within each allocated block
>
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On 10/2/2017 8:19 AM, ARIN wrote:
>
> ARIN was previously requested via the ARIN Consultation and
> Suggestion Process (ACSP) to open a consultation to generate
> discussion about the possibility of sun-setting RWhois support by
> the ARIN organization. ARIN's initial response to the ACSP
> indicated we would open a consultation following the completion of
> the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) specification inside
> the IETF processes. This work has been completed and the RFC has
> been published. ARIN took the additional step of implementing RDAP
> inside its own directory services offering with referral support
> to the other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). With this work
> complete, we are following through with the formalized request to
> open a consultation on this topic.
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/suggestions/2013-22.html
>
> In accordance with ARIN's Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM),
> Organizations are required to report certain types of customer
> network sub-delegation information (reassignments and
> reallocations) to ARIN. Currently there are two reporting methods
> available. Both are delineated in the NRPM and supported by ARIN's
> production services. There is also a third possible method of
> reporting sub-delegation information that could be made available,
> but is not yet offered.
>
> Method 1:
>
> SWIP (currently available): The reporting of sub-delegation
> information using ARIN's database. This can be done either by
> submitting a SWIP template, interfacing with ARIN's RESTful API,
> or by creating a sub-delegation inside ARIN Online using ARIN's
> SWIP-EZ functionality.
>
> https://www.arin.net/resources/request/reassignments.html
>
> Method 2:
>
> RWhois (currently available): The reporting of sub-delegation
> information on your own hosted and operated RWhois server with
> referral link information provided in ARIN Whois as part of your
> own organization's Whois records. In order for a user of ARIN's
> directory services to view sub-delegation information hosted by an
> RWhois server, they would have to submit a separate query to that
> RWhois server, and are not referred in an automated fashion.
>
> https://www.arin.net/resources/request/reassignments_rwhois.html
>
> Method 3:
>
> RDAP: The five RIRs currently use RDAP for referrals to each
> other's Whois data. Although the specification language of the
> RDAP could allow it to be used as a third method for the reporting
> of sub-delegation information to ARIN, it is not currently offered
> as an option. In order to make this option available, associated
> registry software would need to be created. This possible method
> would allow users of ARIN's directory services to view
> sub-delegation information available on customer hosted RDAP
> servers in an automated fashion. This RDAP method may also be
> viewed as redundant to RWhois.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7482
> https://www.arin.net/resources/rdap.html
>
> Options Going Forward
>
> ARIN expects to continue offering Method 1 (SWIP) into the
> foreseeable future. As previously described, we are acting on a
> formal suggestion to consult with the community about the future
> of RWhois support, and also have potential options with RDAP.
>
> · Question (general):
>
>
> Of the three sub-delegation reporting methods listed
> (SWIP, RWhois, RDAP), which should ARIN support in the future?
>
> · Question (SWIP/RESTful API specific):
>
>
> The existing RESTful API allows users to report (SWIP) one
> sub-delegation at a time to be added to ARIN Whois. Should ARIN
> add bulk-upload features to the RESTful API?
>
> · Question (RWhois specific):
>
>
> As noted, RWhois servers are not referred to in an
> automated fashion when users query ARIN Whois. Should ARIN
> automate referrals to RWhois servers from ARIN's Whois service?
>
> · Question (RDAP specific):
>
>
> If ARIN was to allow the reporting of network
> sub-delegation information using RDAP, associated enabling
> software would be required. Should ARIN enable this method by
> creating an RDAP software suite that would allow ARIN registrants
> to run RDAP service locally?
>
> The feedback you provide during this consultation will help inform
> decisions about software tools and support for the reporting of
> network sub-delegation information to ARIN in the future. Thank
> you for your participation in the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion
> Process.
>
> Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net
> <mailto:arin-consult at arin.net> will close on 27 October 2017. If
> you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net
> <mailto:info at arin.net>.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> ARIN-Consult
>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>
> Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20171013/a10a4d27/attachment.html>
More information about the ARIN-consult
mailing list