- db-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9
by Job Snijders 29 Oct '20

29 Oct '20

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(a)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 > > >

1 0

Interest to continue NWI-9
by Stavros Konstantaras 29 Oct '20

29 Oct '20

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

2 1

Agenda RIPE81 - Database Working Group
by William Sylvester 25 Oct '20

25 Oct '20

Db-wg members, Here’s the database working group agenda for our meeting this week. Best regards, DB-WG Chairs A. Introduction - 5 min * Welcome * Scribe * Jabber * Agenda B. Operational Update RIPE Database – 15 mins Edward Shryane, RIPE NCC C. NWI - Open Proposals – 10 mins Denis Walker, DB-WG Co-Chair D. Cloud Migration – 20 mins Sander Buskens, RIPE NCC Z. AOB (open discussion)

1 0

in-addr.arpa glue?
by Randy Bush 23 Oct '20

23 Oct '20

domain: 0.28.147.in-addr.arpa descr: RG79-147-28-0 admin-c: RB45695-RIPE tech-c: RB45695-RIPE zone-c: RB45695-RIPE nserver: rip.psg.com nserver: nlns.globnix.net mnt-by: MAINT-RGNET source: RIPE ***Error: No response from nameserver for zone 28.147.in-addr.arpa when trying to fetch glue. ***Error: Not enough data about 0.28.147.in-addr.arpa was found to be able to run tests. not aware of glue in in-addr.arpa zones does it want me to delete the 28.147.in-addr.arpa parent zone first? that seems scary. randy

3 3

New on RIPE Labs: Our Plan to Fix Country Codes - NWI-10
by Stefania Fokaeos 23 Oct '20

23 Oct '20

Dear colleagues, As part of our preparation for the implementation of NWI-10, we've written an article on RIPE Labs in which we look at our plans for fixing country codes in the RIPE Database. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/stefania_fokaeos/our-plan-to-fix-country-codes <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/stefania_fokaeos/our-plan-to-fix-country-codes> During the RIPE Database WG session next Thursday at RIPE 81 all NWIs will be discussed and if needed my colleague Ed Shryane can provide more details. Kind regards, Stefania Fokaeos RIPE NCC

1 0

MNTNER Naming : Consensus
by William Sylvester 19 Oct '20

19 Oct '20

db-wg members, The chairs of the database working group believe there is a consensus to have a standardised name format for creating new MNTNER objects. There was talk of a prefix (MNT-) or a suffix (-MNT). When creating a new standard it doesn't really make sense to introduce a standard with multiple formats. As there are currently 36347 MNTNERs that end with -MNT and 12480 MNTNERs that start with MNT-, we suggest that the standard should be to end with -MNT. We ask the RIPE NCC to take the next steps in moving this request forward, conducting an impact analysis, and proceed with implementation. Best regards. William & denis db-wg chairs

4 5

NWI reviews: NWI-3, NWI-6 consensus
by denis walker 15 Oct '20

15 Oct '20

Colleagues The author of 'NWI-6 Applicable data model not clear from contextless objects' has agreed that it can be cancelled. No one disagreed with that so the chairs agree to cancel NWI-6. It was suggested that 'NWI-3 Afrinic IRR Homing' was partly superseded by 'NWI-5 Out of region ROUTE(6) / AUT-NUM objects'. As NWI-5 is finished then NWI-3 should also be marked as finished. No one disagreed with this so the chairs agree that NWI-3 is finished. Ed, please mark NWI-3 as 'Finished' and NWI-6 as 'Cancelled'. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG

2 1

Re: [db-wg] proposal: new attribute 'geofeed:'
by Q 07 Oct '20

07 Oct '20

Hi Elad, > Not everyone will add the "geofeed" value and the geolocations in the csv will not validated by a 3rd party and may also be not up to date. It is a fair point that not everyone will use this, but I think a significant enough number will to warrant addition. On the point of validation it would be perhaps advisable for the RIPE DB to verify the reachability of the file (as with rDNS setup), but I don't think further validation is within scope. > I suggest to make the csv creation (of each INETNUM object) automatic and hosted by RIPE NCC Ggood suggestion, not everyone will want to use their own webserver for this, and a simple service provided by RIPE would help improve adoption, however I'm not sure that people who can't host a CSV file should really be dealing in this anyway. > RIPE NCC can use all the current ATLAS Probes in order to check the physical location of each ip This feels like a guess at best, and providing guesswork as authoritative information is hardly a sensible idea. Overall this proposal gets a +1 from me, and due to this purposefully light nature of the geofeed standard itself I don't think RIPE NCC should add too much to it. Thanks, Q Director [image: https://as207960.net] <https://as207960.net> <https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/4570b2d1-947f-426a-832d-d0e4bf445267/pub…> https://as207960.net AS207960 Cyfyngedig Phone: +44 29 2010 2455 (ext 601) Fax: +44 29 2010 2455 Address: 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace, Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU

1 0

NWI reviews: NWI-6 Applicable data model not clear from contextless objects
by ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk 07 Oct '20

07 Oct '20

Colleagues This is the last of the NWIs from 4 years agohttps://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-June/005272.html For this one I am not even sure what is being asked for and I don't agree with some of the points in the problem statement. Maybe Job can expand on it. Any comments appreciated... cheersdenis co-chair DB-WG

2 1

RIPE Database Requirements Task Force BoF, 26 October 2020
by Bijal Sanghani 07 Oct '20

07 Oct '20

Dear colleagues, The RIPE Database Requirements Task Force (DBTF) will organise its second BoF on Monday, 26 October 2020 from 16:00-17:00 (UTC+1) via Meetecho. During this BoF, the DBTF will present its latest draft and invite participants to provide feedback on the document. The Meetecho link to join the BoF will be shared one week before the event at: https://ripe81.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bof/ <https://ripe81.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bof/> We look forward to discussing the future of the RIPE Database with you! Kind regards, Bijal Sanghani on behalf of the DBTF

1 0