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]/
[db-wg] Question regarding delta between "delegated-ripencc-extended-latest" and Whois output
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Question regarding delta between "delegated-ripencc-extended-latest" and Whois output
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Question regarding delta between "delegated-ripencc-extended-latest" and Whois output
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at foobar.org
Mon Jun 29 21:07:15 CEST 2020
Peter Müller via db-wg wrote on 29/06/2020 18:30: > While the RIPE Whois server returned "NL" as the country of that > subnet [1], the "delegated-ripencc-extended-latest" file available at > ftp.ripe.net [2] only contains 51.15.0.0/16, which points to "FR". > > Since the first one result contains the correct country code of that > IP network, I would like to ask why > "delegated-ripencc-extended-latest" does not include subnets like > this, and where the Whois server fetches his answer from. The entirety of this /16 is assigned to a single organisation (Online.net), which is why there's a /16 in delegated-ripencc-extended-latest. This file contains only supernets and nothing more granular. Online.net created an inetnum object for 51.15.0.0/17 which sets the country to be NL. This is why the RIPE DB returns NL for that particular block. Incidentally, IP address allocation queries in the RIPE Database now return the country where the holder of the block is legally resident, not where the IP address is actually used. The situation with 51.15.0.0/17 and 51.15.0.0/16 is only the tip of a gigantic iceberg of quirks and anomalies, not just because you have inconsistent statements about the country, but also because this is legacy (i.e. pre-RIPE) address space and there can be multiple inetnum entries in the ripedb which may be fully inconsistent with each other and where all, some or none of the inetnum records may be an accurate reflection of reality. I.e. if you're planning to use either the RIPE DB or any other whois db for the ipfire geoip blocking mechanism, you may want to consider putting up very large and obtrusive warnings about how thoroughly inaccurate geoblocking may end up being in practice. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Question regarding delta between "delegated-ripencc-extended-latest" and Whois output
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Question regarding delta between "delegated-ripencc-extended-latest" and Whois output
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]