Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9
Hi Job I would agree that NWI-9 is finished, according to the way it is worded. I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem statement? cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 18:09, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
Dear group,
I think NWI-9 needs to be reworded, it in part has been over taken by current events. Rereading https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2019-April/006236.html what is described there actually already has completed.
RIPE NCC's NRTM servers are open to the public (this was not the case in april 2019 yet). The NRTM servers can be used to *subscribe* to changes in the RIPE database. When the NRTM client remains connected, it will receive NRTM updates as they come in. THIS IS IN-BAND, AND FAST. The rate of object change is very low compared to most information systems.
Looking at https://ripe79.ripe.net/presentations/118-NWI-9_S.Konstantaras_DB-WG.pdf it is not clear to me what the problem definition is and how it relates to the wording of NWI-9. The proposed optimisations are either not in the RIPE IRR -> Cache layer (as NRTM is really near-real-time when implemented correctly) but elsewhere in the end-to-end route server functionality. From this perspective NWI-9 has already been completed!
Now, there is plenty to be left desired about NRTM v3. Even though it is both a push and pull protocol and very fast (the push can measured in single digit seconds), NRTM v3 clearly is an ancient protocol and the operational community would benefit from a re-design of NRTM.
WORK IS UNDER WAY: LACNIC has committed funding for IRRd's NRTM v4 implementation. RIPE NCC's 'good for the Internet' community fund has also been requested. That decision is still pending with the committee operating that fund.
So what we have so far:
- A collective desire to replace NRTM v3 with something else - The *only* two IRR server code bases of this industry have (partial) funding to make changes possible: IRRd and RIPE WHOIS server - A standardisation forum to publish the new spec: IETF - Multiple forums for input: RIPE DB-WG, IETF, *NOG, IRC, etc
If NWI-9 is kept open I would request it is reworded to the extend that this working group requests RIPE NCC to commit to help design, implement, test & adhere to what will become "NRTM v4".
I read Stavros' presentation where the above plan is listed as 'Langzaam' :-) but the characterization may be a little bit off: there is no Legal aspect to deal with: RIPE NCC made NRTM freely, contract-less, publicly and in real-time available already. Also keep in mind that any new protocol will indeed need to be tested (even if general purpose components such as JSON, HTTPS and WebSockets are used!).
NRTM v4's design will have nothing to do with how NRTM v3 looks and feels. NRTM v4 will be HTTPS based, I guarantee it! This project has 'NRTM v4' as name to make it clear to the IRR operational community where in the internet-stack this protocol belongs, but that it is an improvement over version 3.
NRTM v4 can easily be something that is finished and deployed in 2021. What needs to be done is fairly straight-forward, and lots of existing tools can be used to make the job easier (like HTTPS and JSON).
Kind regards,
Job
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 05:22:10PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
Hi Stavros
Thanks for the comment. I have let Ed know about your interest.
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 17:11, Stavros Konstantaras via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi WG chairs,
I would like to declare that from our side we are still interested to team up with Ed and RIPE NCC colleagues to continue the work on NWI-9 item in order to modernise the NRTM service with something better and more suitable for our current needs.
As far as I can recall, Ed and his team have several ideas to proceed forward with this subject, so I believe that we would be able to draw a clear development plan. And as a kind reminder, not only us (AMS-IX) but the European IXP community has expressed interest on proceeding with that subject.
Thank you and we are looking forward to discuss further steps on the subject.
Best regards,
Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999 ams-ix.net
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem statement?
Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an updated problem statement for NWI-12? Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing list. Kind regards, Job
Hi Job I am certainly available for that. Would you be available then Ed to offer any input from the RIPE NCC? cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 20:38, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem statement?
Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an updated problem statement for NWI-12?
Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing list.
Kind regards,
Job
Hi Job, Was there a call about this yet? And if so, was there any outcome? - Cynthia On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 20:38 Job Snijders via db-wg, <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem statement?
Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an updated problem statement for NWI-12?
Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing list.
Kind regards,
Job
I also support creating a new NWI for a modernized NRTM like service. - Cynthia On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 02:50 Cynthia Revström, <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
Hi Job,
Was there a call about this yet?
And if so, was there any outcome?
- Cynthia
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 20:38 Job Snijders via db-wg, <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem statement?
Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an updated problem statement for NWI-12?
Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing list.
Kind regards,
Job
Hi Cynthia, Yes the call happened and the problem description is almost ready. Soon will be published here in the mailing list so the DB-WG chairs can officially create a new NWI and submit it to RIPE NCC developers Thank you for your support and your interest on that :) Best regards, Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999 ams-ix.net
On 6 Nov 2020, at 02:51, Cynthia Revström via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
I also support creating a new NWI for a modernized NRTM like service.
- Cynthia
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 02:50 Cynthia Revström, <me@cynthia.re <mailto:me@cynthia.re>> wrote: Hi Job,
Was there a call about this yet?
And if so, was there any outcome?
- Cynthia
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 20:38 Job Snijders via db-wg, <db-wg@ripe.net <mailto:db-wg@ripe.net>> wrote: On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem statement?
Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an updated problem statement for NWI-12?
Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing list.
Kind regards,
Job
I would like to see more here on the mailing list, so I would request that any future calls be recorded and published. I have opinions on this subject and I don't think me missing the call should leave me out of the loop. - Cynthia On Fri, Nov 6, 2020, 11:31 Stavros Konstantaras < stavros.konstantaras@ams-ix.net> wrote:
Hi Cynthia,
Yes the call happened and the problem description is almost ready. Soon will be published here in the mailing list so the DB-WG chairs can officially create a new NWI and submit it to RIPE NCC developers
Thank you for your support and your interest on that :)
Best regards,
Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999 ams-ix.net
On 6 Nov 2020, at 02:51, Cynthia Revström via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
I also support creating a new NWI for a modernized NRTM like service.
- Cynthia
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020, 02:50 Cynthia Revström, <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
Hi Job,
Was there a call about this yet?
And if so, was there any outcome?
- Cynthia
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, 20:38 Job Snijders via db-wg, <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 06:30:28PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem statement?
Given that more people than just myself were engaged with this subject so far... maybe Stavros, Emil, a DB-WG chair, myself and any other interested parties can have a 1 hour group phone call to formulate an updated problem statement for NWI-12?
Perhaps next week, November 4th, 15:00 UTC? Consider it a "hallway chat", not something formal. The chairs can report back to the mailing list.
Kind regards,
Job
Hi Dennis, I agree to close NWI-9 and proceed with opening of NWI-12 in order to explore ways to modernise the NRTM service. With that said, please consider my interest also for NWI-12. Best regards, Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999 ams-ix.net
On 29 Oct 2020, at 18:30, denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Job
I would agree that NWI-9 is finished, according to the way it is worded. I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem statement?
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 18:09, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
Dear group,
I think NWI-9 needs to be reworded, it in part has been over taken by current events. Rereading https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2019-April/006236.html what is described there actually already has completed.
RIPE NCC's NRTM servers are open to the public (this was not the case in april 2019 yet). The NRTM servers can be used to *subscribe* to changes in the RIPE database. When the NRTM client remains connected, it will receive NRTM updates as they come in. THIS IS IN-BAND, AND FAST. The rate of object change is very low compared to most information systems.
Looking at https://ripe79.ripe.net/presentations/118-NWI-9_S.Konstantaras_DB-WG.pdf it is not clear to me what the problem definition is and how it relates to the wording of NWI-9. The proposed optimisations are either not in the RIPE IRR -> Cache layer (as NRTM is really near-real-time when implemented correctly) but elsewhere in the end-to-end route server functionality. From this perspective NWI-9 has already been completed!
Now, there is plenty to be left desired about NRTM v3. Even though it is both a push and pull protocol and very fast (the push can measured in single digit seconds), NRTM v3 clearly is an ancient protocol and the operational community would benefit from a re-design of NRTM.
WORK IS UNDER WAY: LACNIC has committed funding for IRRd's NRTM v4 implementation. RIPE NCC's 'good for the Internet' community fund has also been requested. That decision is still pending with the committee operating that fund.
So what we have so far:
- A collective desire to replace NRTM v3 with something else - The *only* two IRR server code bases of this industry have (partial) funding to make changes possible: IRRd and RIPE WHOIS server - A standardisation forum to publish the new spec: IETF - Multiple forums for input: RIPE DB-WG, IETF, *NOG, IRC, etc
If NWI-9 is kept open I would request it is reworded to the extend that this working group requests RIPE NCC to commit to help design, implement, test & adhere to what will become "NRTM v4".
I read Stavros' presentation where the above plan is listed as 'Langzaam' :-) but the characterization may be a little bit off: there is no Legal aspect to deal with: RIPE NCC made NRTM freely, contract-less, publicly and in real-time available already. Also keep in mind that any new protocol will indeed need to be tested (even if general purpose components such as JSON, HTTPS and WebSockets are used!).
NRTM v4's design will have nothing to do with how NRTM v3 looks and feels. NRTM v4 will be HTTPS based, I guarantee it! This project has 'NRTM v4' as name to make it clear to the IRR operational community where in the internet-stack this protocol belongs, but that it is an improvement over version 3.
NRTM v4 can easily be something that is finished and deployed in 2021. What needs to be done is fairly straight-forward, and lots of existing tools can be used to make the job easier (like HTTPS and JSON).
Kind regards,
Job
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 05:22:10PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
Hi Stavros
Thanks for the comment. I have let Ed know about your interest.
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 17:11, Stavros Konstantaras via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi WG chairs,
I would like to declare that from our side we are still interested to team up with Ed and RIPE NCC colleagues to continue the work on NWI-9 item in order to modernise the NRTM service with something better and more suitable for our current needs.
As far as I can recall, Ed and his team have several ideas to proceed forward with this subject, so I believe that we would be able to draw a clear development plan. And as a kind reminder, not only us (AMS-IX) but the European IXP community has expressed interest on proceeding with that subject.
Thank you and we are looking forward to discuss further steps on the subject.
Best regards,
Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999 ams-ix.net
Hello Denis, A new NWI sounds reasonable. Working towards a solution that can then be implemented fairly quickly in IRRd and the RIPE database is great, because it’ll allow us to reach fairly wide adoption on a relatively short timescale. I can’t make the proposed call, but I’ll wait to see what comes out of that first - as the person who implemented NRTMv3 in IRRd and will be writing on IRRd’s NRTMv4 implementation, I do have opinions :) Sasha
On 30 Oct 2020, at 08:36, Stavros Konstantaras via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Dennis,
I agree to close NWI-9 and proceed with opening of NWI-12 in order to explore ways to modernise the NRTM service. With that said, please consider my interest also for NWI-12.
Best regards,
Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999 ams-ix.net <http://ams-ix.net/>
On 29 Oct 2020, at 18:30, denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com <mailto:ripedenis@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Job
I would agree that NWI-9 is finished, according to the way it is worded. I would suggest we create NWI-12 to move forward with a new version of NRTM. Perhaps you could write the first draft of the problem statement?
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 18:09, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net <mailto:job@ntt.net>> wrote:
Dear group,
I think NWI-9 needs to be reworded, it in part has been over taken by current events. Rereading https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2019-April/006236.html <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2019-April/006236.html> what is described there actually already has completed.
RIPE NCC's NRTM servers are open to the public (this was not the case in april 2019 yet). The NRTM servers can be used to *subscribe* to changes in the RIPE database. When the NRTM client remains connected, it will receive NRTM updates as they come in. THIS IS IN-BAND, AND FAST. The rate of object change is very low compared to most information systems.
Looking at https://ripe79.ripe.net/presentations/118-NWI-9_S.Konstantaras_DB-WG.pdf <https://ripe79.ripe.net/presentations/118-NWI-9_S.Konstantaras_DB-WG.pdf> it is not clear to me what the problem definition is and how it relates to the wording of NWI-9. The proposed optimisations are either not in the RIPE IRR -> Cache layer (as NRTM is really near-real-time when implemented correctly) but elsewhere in the end-to-end route server functionality. From this perspective NWI-9 has already been completed!
Now, there is plenty to be left desired about NRTM v3. Even though it is both a push and pull protocol and very fast (the push can measured in single digit seconds), NRTM v3 clearly is an ancient protocol and the operational community would benefit from a re-design of NRTM.
WORK IS UNDER WAY: LACNIC has committed funding for IRRd's NRTM v4 implementation. RIPE NCC's 'good for the Internet' community fund has also been requested. That decision is still pending with the committee operating that fund.
So what we have so far:
- A collective desire to replace NRTM v3 with something else - The *only* two IRR server code bases of this industry have (partial) funding to make changes possible: IRRd and RIPE WHOIS server - A standardisation forum to publish the new spec: IETF - Multiple forums for input: RIPE DB-WG, IETF, *NOG, IRC, etc
If NWI-9 is kept open I would request it is reworded to the extend that this working group requests RIPE NCC to commit to help design, implement, test & adhere to what will become "NRTM v4".
I read Stavros' presentation where the above plan is listed as 'Langzaam' :-) but the characterization may be a little bit off: there is no Legal aspect to deal with: RIPE NCC made NRTM freely, contract-less, publicly and in real-time available already. Also keep in mind that any new protocol will indeed need to be tested (even if general purpose components such as JSON, HTTPS and WebSockets are used!).
NRTM v4's design will have nothing to do with how NRTM v3 looks and feels. NRTM v4 will be HTTPS based, I guarantee it! This project has 'NRTM v4' as name to make it clear to the IRR operational community where in the internet-stack this protocol belongs, but that it is an improvement over version 3.
NRTM v4 can easily be something that is finished and deployed in 2021. What needs to be done is fairly straight-forward, and lots of existing tools can be used to make the job easier (like HTTPS and JSON).
Kind regards,
Job
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 05:22:10PM +0100, denis walker via db-wg wrote:
Hi Stavros
Thanks for the comment. I have let Ed know about your interest.
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 at 17:11, Stavros Konstantaras via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net <mailto:db-wg@ripe.net>> wrote:
Hi WG chairs,
I would like to declare that from our side we are still interested to team up with Ed and RIPE NCC colleagues to continue the work on NWI-9 item in order to modernise the NRTM service with something better and more suitable for our current needs.
As far as I can recall, Ed and his team have several ideas to proceed forward with this subject, so I believe that we would be able to draw a clear development plan. And as a kind reminder, not only us (AMS-IX) but the European IXP community has expressed interest on proceeding with that subject.
Thank you and we are looking forward to discuss further steps on the subject.
Best regards,
Stavros Konstantaras | Sr. Network Engineer | AMS-IX M +31 (0) 620 89 51 04 | T +31 20 305 8999 ams-ix.net <http://ams-ix.net/>
participants (5)
-
Cynthia Revström -
denis walker -
Job Snijders -
Sasha Romijn -
Stavros Konstantaras