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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>> >>>
