- mat-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Call for presentations for MAT WG at RIPE86 in May
by Stephen Strowes 06 Apr '23

06 Apr '23

Hi all, RIPE86 is coming up fast: 22 -- 26 May! We are seeking your presentations for the next MAT WG session during that week. Presentations for the WG session are preferably 10-15min long. Please include in your proposal: * a title * a draft of your proposed presentation, even if just an outline * a paragraph describing the topic, and why the topic is of interest for the community. Interesting topics include (but are not limited to): recent measurement research which has an operational impact; recent operational work that may open avenues to research; projects, tools, or datasets that support either operations or research. Please submit your presentation proposal by Friday 28 April by emailing us at mat-wg-chairs at ripe.net. We will make our selections and post the agenda soon after. RIPE meetings are fully hybrid, and we encourage presentations from anywhere. Sessions are facilitated through meetecho. For our planning, we'd appreciate it if you can indicate whether you are likely to be online or on-site. Please ask if you have any questions regarding the setup on either side. Thanks! Cheers, Nina, Massimo, Stephen, as WG co-chairs

1 1

Subject: RIPE Atlas, RIPEstat and RIS Quarterly Planning Q2 2023
by Robert Kisteleki 30 Mar '23

30 Mar '23

Dear colleagues, The quarterly plans for RIPE Atlas, RIPEstat and RIS can now be found at: https://www.ripe.net/support/documentation/quarterly-planning The goal of our quarterly planning is to communicate the work we’re doing for the coming months, get your input and start a discussion on other developments we should work on. If you have any input on our plans or want to let us know what you would like to see us work on, please let us know. Kind regards, Robert Kisteleki RIPE NCC

1 0

some thoughts on add-path and bmp at ripe/ris
by Randy Bush 17 Mar '23

17 Mar '23

i have some small thoughts on add-path and BMP in RIPE/RIS. this may hinder more than help, unfortunately. as a researcher, of course i would love a wider view into the AS graph and the views of as many ASs as possible. nom nom. but ... add-path, if not done very carefully, and documented in detail for each peer, will produce views i will not understand. it is analogous to not knowing what view a BGP peer gives RIS today. did it give me a full Nth view into peer X? is the path that of a peer, a customer, a provider? and add-path is worse because it prunes in configuration and vendor- dependent and otherwise unpredictable ways. and, as an operator if P is a RIS peer, and they give RIS BMP showing their input from their peers, upstreams, and customers, those peers, upstreams, and customers have not given thir consent to have their internals published! if they want to have RIS publish their internals, they would peer with RIS and choose what view they present. and, of course, the researcher does not know what view, peer, upstream, or customer P's BMP peer is giving them. same problem as above under add-path. randy

2 3

Re: [mat-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2023-02 New Policy Proposal (Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary Assignments)
by Massimo Candela 07 Mar '23

07 Mar '23

Hi all, I added in cc the MAT mailing list, which is frequented by researchers. I believe that is the right audience for this proposal. @MAT: Support for this proposal should be expressed before this Friday (March 10). See proposal below. Reply by keeping both list. @Addres-policy: I support this proposal. ------- I also mention below a variation of this proposal, which could be it's own proposal/thread (suggestions welcome): There should be an easy way to do "temporary assignments" (which may or may not be the correct term in this case) to researchers/developers, starting from address space of a company which is "sponsoring" the research. The key part of what I would like to have is the possibility to provide somebody with access to LIR portal services but limited to a specific subset of my resources. In general, a company is not going to support a research/experiment by providing indiscriminate access to the LIR portal. Creating a new LIR or transferring prefixes is not a plausible solution in this context. Also, I believe this would remove the need for an approval procedure from the RIPE NCC side: (1) if the address space used is of a company, there is less need to validate the research project motivations; and (2) the company "sponsoring" is also the one responsible for the address space. Ciao, Massimo On 27/02/2023 16:44, Leo Vegoda wrote: > Hi, > > We've not had any feedback on this proposal yet. > > As a reminder, this proposal would set "the minimum assignment size to > a /24 while still allowing for a smaller assignment if requested by > the End User. This policy proposal also allows routing requirements to > justify the request for more than a /24 for research purposes." > > Support for the proposal, or arguments against it are welcome. > > Many thanks, > > Leo Vegoda > Address Policy WG co-chair > > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 at 00:26, Angela Dall'Ara <adallara(a)ripe.net> wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2023-02, "Minimum Size for IPv4 Temporary >> Assignments" >> is now available for discussion. >> >> This policy proposal recommends setting the minimum assignment size for >> temporary assignments to a /24 while still allowing for a smaller >> assignment if requested by the End User. This policy proposal also >> allows routing requirements to justify the request for more than a /24 >> for research purposes. >> >> You can find the full proposal at: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-02 >> >> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this >> four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide >> feedback to the proposers. >> >> At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of >> the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. >> >> The PDP document can be found at: >> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 >> >> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >> address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 10 March 2023. >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Angela Dall'Ara >> Policy Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> >> -- >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg >

1 0

Improved timeliness of RIS dump files
by Emile Aben 07 Mar '23

07 Mar '23

Dear colleagues, We are planning to replace the pipeline that generates MRT dump files publicly available from the RIPE NCC. The new pipeline will have significantly less delay, and also some changes on the structure of the MRT file format [*]. Files in the newer format are available for testing here: https://www.ris.ripe.net/dumps-per-rrc-rest/prototype/ We have received feedback from MRT parser implementers that these files work fine for their parsers, but in case you haven't tested your MRT parser implementation, we ask you to test the new files before we make the switch. Our plan is to make this switch on 3 April 2023. After we make the switch the bview files available at our main location for downloading MRT files will be generated using the new pipeline and we will be able to produce these files in a more timely manner. Kind regards, Emile Aben RIPE NCC [*] These changes are documented here: https://ris.ripe.net/docs/40_Prototypes/15_per_rrc_dumps.html, but beware at this point we are only changing the files, not the frequency of dump files, nor putting the API in production. We did not receive feedback about these, but please let us know if you find them useful.

1 0

Re: [mat-wg] [atlas] Proposal: Remove support for non-public measurements [ONLY-PUBLIC]
by Stephen Strowes 11 Jan '23

11 Jan '23

Hi, On 12/31/22 18:37, Randy Bush wrote: > hi robert, > > and thanks > >> I seem to remember that a typical non-public measurement is a one-off, >> and as such the data volume collected and stored is likely to be >> relatiely low. > interesting There is an old (late 2016) labs post worth referring to for this discussion [1]. In 2020 there was a survey of the users of private measurements [2], which was intended to get feedback on their actual use-cases. I seem to recall a very small set of respondents from an already small set of surveyees. The results are probably lost in the ether. I feel there's an aspect of the broader question that is rarely touched upon in these discussions: would user behaviour actually change if non-public measurements went away? I'm never sure how many use-cases are truly secret. Cheers, S. [1] https://labs.ripe.net/author/kistel/non-public-measurements-in-ripe-atlas/ [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/forms/apply/ripe-atlas-private-measurement… > >> I don't have the numbers readily available to me at this moment, but >> we can certainly dig up recent statistics about this. > i did not intend to create a lot of work for you. but, as a measurement > person, i am a bit fond of basing decisions on facts. > > randy >

1 0

Fwd: [atlas] Proposal: Remove support for non-public measurements [ONLY-PUBLIC]
by Stephen Strowes 22 Dec '22

22 Dec '22

Hi all, I'm forwarding these five threads into the MAT WG because they're all probably of interest to folks here. Please share your feedback with the NCC! Cheers, S. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [atlas] Proposal: Remove support for non-public measurements [ONLY-PUBLIC] Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:04:40 +0100 From: Robert Kisteleki <robert(a)ripe.net> Organization: RIPE NCC To: ripe-atlas(a)ripe.net <ripe-atlas(a)ripe.net> Dear RIPE Atlas users, We recently published a RIPE Labs article containing a few proposals: https://labs.ripe.net/author/kistel/five-proposals-for-a-better-ripe-atlas/. We'd like to encourage you to express your comments about this proposal (if you'd like to share them) here. Regards, Robert Kisteleki For the RIPE Atlas team -- ripe-atlas mailing list ripe-atlas(a)ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-atlas

2 1

Re: [mat-wg] [atlas] Proposal: Measure well-known CDNs,[CDN-HTTP]
by Massimo Candela 17 Dec '22

17 Dec '22

On 17/12/2022 00:19, Barry Raveendran Greene wrote: > > >> On Dec 16, 2022, at 23:29, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer(a)nic.fr> wrote: >> >> There is a larger problem here, a more strategic one: such a feature >> would contribute to the centralisation of the Internet, which is >> already too important. Tagging some targets are "important" and >> "worthy of measurements" would mean that we consider some HTTP servers >> to be more useful than others. That would be a bad message from RIPE. > > We’ve come full circle - we started with centralized PTTs - moved to a decentralized ASN/Paul Baran model - now Re-centralized based on marketing domination. > > +1 with Stephane’s observation. The selection of who to measure is a statement. +1 Also, while the data would be useful, I don't think the role of the ripe ncc is to grade commercial services. Let other companies or individual researchers do that.

1 0

RIPE Atlas, RIPEstat and RIS Quarterly Planning Q1 2023
by Robert Kisteleki 16 Dec '22

16 Dec '22

Dear colleagues, We’ve now published our quarterly planning for RIPE Atlas, RIPEstat and RIS. These are available at: https://www.ripe.net/support/documentation/quarterly-planning The goal of our quarterly planning is to communicate the work we’re doing for the coming months, get your input and start a discussion on other developments we should work on. If you have any input on our plans or want to let us know what you would like to see us work on, please let us know. Kind regards, Robert Kisteleki Research and Development Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Fwd: [atlas] Proposal: Add support for STARTTLS measurements [STARTTLS]
by Stephen Strowes 14 Dec '22

14 Dec '22

Hi all, I'm forwarding these five threads into the MAT WG because they're all probably of interest to folks here. Please share your feedback with the NCC! Cheers, S. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [atlas] Proposal: Add support for STARTTLS measurements [STARTTLS] Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:04:06 +0100 From: Robert Kisteleki <robert(a)ripe.net> Organization: RIPE NCC To: ripe-atlas(a)ripe.net <ripe-atlas(a)ripe.net> Dear RIPE Atlas users, We recently published a RIPE Labs article containing a few proposals: https://labs.ripe.net/author/kistel/five-proposals-for-a-better-ripe-atlas/. We'd like to encourage you to express your comments about this proposal (if you'd like to share them) here. Regards, Robert Kisteleki For the RIPE Atlas team -- ripe-atlas mailing list ripe-atlas(a)ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-atlas

1 0