- ncc-services-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE NCC Planning Q4 2021
by Felipe Victolla Silveira 30 Sep '21

30 Sep '21

Dear colleagues, We are now publishing the quarterly planning for all our development teams. These are available at: https://www.ripe.net/support/documentation/quarterly-planning <https://www.ripe.net/support/documentation/quarterly-planning> The goals of publishing our planning are to be transparent about the work we will be carrying out in the coming months, to get your input on those plans, and to foster a dialogue with our members and the community about what you would like to see the RIPE NCC work on going forward. Last quarter, we published our plans for RPKI and this was shared with the Routing Working Group. Today we publish our planning for the RIPE Database and our Business Applications, which includes work we will carry out with the LIR Portal, registry services and other applications the RIPE NCC provides for its members and community. We will provide status updates as the work progresses and add input from the community to the pages. We will also archive previous plans so you can track how we progress with our work. If you have comments or questions about our planning, I hope you'll let us know. Kind regards, Felipe Victolla Silveira Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE NCC transparency and response SLA
by noc＠netispro.com 24 Sep '21

24 Sep '21

Hi All, I remember that such issues were repeatedly discussed at the RIPE meetings, but I would still like to raise the question of the transparency of the RIPE NCC procedures and response SLA for the (future) members' requests. Our company is already an active RIPE NCC member and on August 18 we decided to open an additional LIR account in order to get an allocation for our operations through the waiting list. The application was processed as usual until we paid the invoice and returned our signed agreement (August 20). After that the whole request got out of control and over the last 10 days we've received only standard replies that the Registry Services team experiences "heavy workload" and our application is postponed again and again without any additional request or explanation. Thus, despite the stated aim of "providing a response within one working day", our request remains in processing for a significant time and the RIPE NCC refuses to even provide any details on the reasons or the exact processing time. It's also very funny that some replies from the RIPE NCC refer to the additional Due Diligence checks that are required for our application, but since we are incorporated in a country with a public transparent corporate register, are not subject to any EU sanctions and already hold a RIPE NCC membership that was duly checked before the activation, it just looks like an unconvincing excuse that only misleads us. I have discussed this issue with other members and many of them told me that they have encountered similar problems when submitting various kinds of requests (allocation, assignment, transfers) in the past. It looks like the RIPE NCC can simply stockpile inconvenient, complex or any other requests without any valid reason and for any period of time. Thus, I kindly ask the RIPE NCC to comment on this issue and answer a couple of questions: 1. Why some of the requests are delayed due to the "heavy workload" excuse while the requests submitted later are timely processed? 2. Why we (as an applicant) aren't able to get any information on our request status and exact processing time for weeks? 3. Are similar cases actually reflected in the internal ticket statistics and what measures are taken by the management to solve this problem? Kind regards, Elina

3 7

Re: [ncc-services-wg] [ncc-announce] [news] Using Third Parties to Automate Our Due Diligence
by Nick Hilliard 17 Sep '21

17 Sep '21

Felipe Victolla Silveira wrote on 16/09/2021 13:14: > We will be working with iDenfy, a specialised provider in automated > ID validation and remote identification services, to ensure a high > standard of diligence and security across all ID documents that we > process. Once this is ready, members will upload personal > identification documents directly to the iDenfy system using a secure > link that we send. In addition to maintaining a high level of > security, iDenfy will ensure that this data is deleted within 14 days > of being submitted. In line with GDPR, we remain the ‘data > controller’. Work is currently underway to integrate our external > request processes with iDenfy’s systems and we plan for this to go > live on 23 September. Hi Felipe, https://www.idenfy.com/identity-verification-service/ can you confirm that there will be an option to decline automated biometric analysis, specifically including facial / feature analysis? Nick

2 1

Interim RIPE NCC Services WG Meeting
by Rob Evans 06 Sep '21

06 Sep '21

Hi all, A reminder that we will hold another interim RIPE NCC Services WG meeting on Monday the 6th September at 14:00 UTC / 15:00 BST / 16:00 CEST. The agenda will again be to learn more about the RIPE NCC’s plans for moving some services to the cloud. There will be a presentation from the RIPE NCC and hopefully ample time for discussion. Details for joining the meeting, which will be held on Zoom, are appended. Hope to see you on Monday! Cheers, Bijal, Kurtis & Rob Topic: NCC Services WG Meeting Time: Sep 6, 2021 16:00 Amsterdam Join Zoom Meeting https://ripe.zoom.us/j/97983465596?pwd=S0lnWkZ3SFdORk9LRUdQbDlISUljZz09 Meeting ID: 979 8346 5596 Passcode: 771907 Join by SIP 97983465596(a)zoomcrc.com Join by H.323 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) 221.122.88.195 (China) 115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai) 115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad) 213.19.144.110 (Amsterdam Netherlands) 213.244.140.110 (Germany) 103.122.166.55 (Australia Sydney) 103.122.167.55 (Australia Melbourne) 209.9.211.110 (Hong Kong SAR) 64.211.144.160 (Brazil) 69.174.57.160 (Canada Toronto) 65.39.152.160 (Canada Vancouver) 207.226.132.110 (Japan Tokyo) 149.137.24.110 (Japan Osaka) Meeting ID: 979 8346 5596 Passcode: 771907

2 1

Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE NCC and the Cloud: Draft Principles, Requirements and Strategy Framework
by Drew DeVault 01 Sep '21

01 Sep '21

The desire to use upgraded and modern technologies is strong among engineers, but it is essential to temper it with a sense of responsibility towards our users. RIPE's affairs are of critical importance for matters ranging from economics to national security for a broad range of countries and people, and this necessitates a careful, conservative approach to technology. RIPE lacks the privilege to experiment with unproven technologies or take a radical approach to its infrastructure. This can be balanced with an open-minded eye towards the state-of-the-art, and indeed it must in order to meet some requirements imposed on RIPE's infrastructure (such as security and performance), but a great deal of care must be taken in this process, with matters of international security, economics, and sovereignty in mind. It is a matter of our pride as engineers that we consider these issues carefully and incorporate the broader context into our decision-making on technology. With that in mind, the choice to use GCP and AWS seems misjudged. There are several principles laid out in this document which are not upheld with this choice. The most obvious is the preference for local providers. Amazon[0] and Google[1] are multi-nationals, but are US-first, hiring for AWS and GCP mainly (or entirely, in Amazon's case) outside of RIPE service areas. If Cloud is the future, the talent necessary to maintain that future is being centralized outside of RIPE's areas of interest, and by relying on them rather than investing in that talent locally, it betrays the sovereign interests of its members. Furthermore, these providers have a record of legal problems which stem from a US-first mindset and an unwillingness to obey laws in RIPE service regions, particularly the EU, with a historical record of GDPR violations, leading to steep fines[2][3]. These links cover only two fines, and there have been several more. [0]: https://www.amazon.jobs/en/search?base_query=%23SecOps&loc_query=&latitude=… [1]: https://paste.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/15aa14e9009a7ca99ba2511354c84a878a7f7894 [2]: https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2020/swedish-data-protection-auth… [3]: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58024116 Additionally, the concerns regarding vendor-lock in and single-provider dependence in conflict with the prioritization for engineering time. The requirements necessary to establish a robust provider-neutral cloud deployment are comparable in effort to the requirements of a private cloud, and such a deployment would impose frustrating limitations such as limiting feature-use to the mutually-compatible subset of both clouds, or making the infrastructure more difficult to audit. And this is my recommendation: a private cloud. Tools like OpenStack and Kubernetes are widely available industry standards which allows for many of the same improvements RIPE seeks to establish with this initiative, but rates much better within the principles laid out here, as well as in terms of RIPE's stewardship over international interests. A private cloud also makes more sense in economic terms, a matter which is not to be taken lightly by the thoughtful engineer, as the move from private infrastructure to a commercial cloud would convert assets (the infrastructure) into liabilities (the cloud servers) by extracting a rent from RIPE, which, furthermore, is a rent paid to the US. Is the return to the economies in RIPE's service regions in greater than the expense of paying a tax to the United States? Even without considering the export of cloud expertise, or the difficult-to-measure effects on the soft power of RIPE's constituent nations, the answer is likely "no".

2 3

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Draft Cloud Strategy Framework
by Antony Gollan 01 Sep '21

01 Sep '21

Dear Gert, Hank, Sorry for the delay with our response here. We have a few people taking their summer break at the moment, which has made it hard to get a proper response together. We will share something with the list next week. Kind regards, Antony Gollan Communications Team Leader RIPE NCC

4 3

Draft Cloud Strategy Framework
by Felipe Victolla Silveira 11 Aug '21

11 Aug '21

Dear colleagues, Following the recent discussion on this list, we have published an article on RIPE Labs with principles, requirements and a new draft strategy framework for our use of cloud providers: https://labs.ripe.net/author/felipe_victolla_silveira/ripe-ncc-and-the-clou… <https://labs.ripe.net/author/felipe_victolla_silveira/ripe-ncc-and-the-clou…> We gave an overview of this at the interim session of this WG last week. You can find the recording and minutes from that session here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/services/minutes/ripe-nc… <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/services/minutes/ripe-nc…> The chairs of the working group have been kind enough to schedule a second interim WG session for 6 September where we can discuss this framework in more detail. Until then, we look forward to hearing what you think on this mailing list. Kind regards, Felipe Victolla Silveira Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC

6 7

New on RIPE Labs: RIPE NCC and the Cloud - Let’s Start Again
by Patrik Fältström 11 Aug '21

11 Aug '21

I see the discussion about "RIPE NCC and cloud" in the archives and believe one of the reasons there seems to be a confusion is that indeed many issues are mixed in the same...hmm...whatever. I personally think deployment "in the cloud" implies an ability to deploy services in such a way (orchestration) that resources are dynamically allocated depending on for example load. This implies automatic scaling and dynamic allocation of storage, memory and CPU. Efficient such deployment can to some degree be independent of who is the provider of "the cloud". Quite often it is mostly efficient if in normal load it is deployed "on prem" while dynamic allocation during extreme load is "to an external provider". This to get most efficient use of the hardware one have invested in. For this to work, it is important to not(!) use specific services that often can also be offered by the provider of the cloud service. And this regardless of whether the deployment is on prem or externally. My suggested request to RIPE NCC is because of this to implement orchestration of services in such a way that the mechanism used is as provider neutral as possible. The 2nd request could be to remind RIPE NCC to do the actual deployment in an as efficient way as possible (whether on prem or not), but to be honest, this is what I always expect the Managing Director to do, and I do not think we members should do micro management. On top of this we have policy related requirements that in turn can be divided in two: 1. That RIPE NCC do not violate any by law requirements on data, data transfer, data storage and such things; and 2. That the policy expressed by the RIPE Community that is on top of the regulative requirements is implemented. Regarding these, I sure hope RIPE NCC is not violate any regulation. If they do we have some other issues. The 2nd list of requirements might have to do with the quite complicated situation RIPE NCC is in, to have customers in many different jurisdictions and the union of these legislations might be implemented in multiple ways, and when doing this selection on how to do "the right thing", RIPE community might have some interest in influencing it. I believe we see this for example in the DB WG on how to implement the database and here in this WG. But, separate from this I see questions where RIPE members do ask RIPE NCC to be more transparent on how (for example) legislation in the Netherlands is implemented. What I think we in the community should do though is to separate between when we want transparency and when we do believe we really do have input on issues that do not micro manage the work the managing director do. Personally, I think the Managing Director and his staff is doing good stuff and see no reason what so ever to question what decisions they have made. That said, I am curious in some cases to know what decisions they have made as maybe I have the same or similar deliberations to do at Netnod and might want to know more. But I do not question them. So, many things are intertwined and specifically mixed up are "us members being curious" and "us members actually wanting to provide input". From a technical stand point, I think the most important thing for "cloud" is to choose interoperable solutions so that migration from one cloud to another is possible, or at least as easy as possible. Including on-prem-clouds. Best, Patrik

9 12

RIPE NCC Services WG Draft minutes - RIPE 82
by Bijal Sanghani 02 Aug '21

02 Aug '21

Dear All, The draft minutes from the NCC Services WG at RIPE 82 are available online - https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/services/minutes/ripe-nc… <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/services/minutes/ripe-nc…> Please feel free to send comments to the chairs or the mailing list. Kind regards, NCC Services WG Chairs

1 0

Related prefixes
by Hank Nussbacher 29 Jul '21

29 Jul '21

Is it just me or can others always reach: https://stat.ripe.net/widget/related-prefixes Sometimes works - sometimes 504 Gateway Time-out (nginx) Thanks, Hank

2 1