Hi Petrit, I understand that, but I think it may be easy to get an idea, not exact cost.
The reason why this is needed is because one of the arguments against this proposal is about the cost. This can't be judged as a valid objection for reaching consensus if we don't have that cost (approximate). Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 3/3/20 13:16, "routing-wg en nombre de Petrit Hasani" <[email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> escribió: Dear Jordi, I would like to clarify that the financial cost approximation of a proposal is not part of the Impact Analysis and the Policy Development Process, so we have not made a calculation. As too many factors have to be taken into account that we can't estimate realistically at this stage of the PDP. Our software department provided an estimation of the worked involved for the implementation of the proposal which is explained in the impact analysis. Kind regards, — Petrit Hasani Policy Officer RIPE NCC > On 2 Mar 2020, at 20:22, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Thiago, > > Yeah, I understand that … So, my question is re-directed to the policy officer for providing an approximation of what is the cost. > > Regards, > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > > > > El 2/3/20 20:07, "Thiago da Cruz" <[email protected]> escribió: > > Hi Jordi, > > I’m not the budget guy, so I’m going to distance myself from the euros. > When I say “it would cost us a lot to implement it” I mean in effort when compared with other options. > > Kind regards, > Thiago da Cruz > Sr. software engineer - RPKI Team > RIPE NCC > > > >> On 2 Mar 2020, at 18:25, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Thiago, >> >> The question here, I think, is to understand how much in euros is “a lot”? >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> >> @jordipalet >> >> >> >> >> >> El 2/3/20 11:11, "routing-wg en nombre de Thiago da Cruz" <[email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> escribió: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Many of you might not know me, but I’m part of RIPE’s software engineering team that takes care of RPKI. >> >> I’ve been following this discussion closely and I've noticed some lack of clarity about our decision to duplicate our RPKI infrastructure. >> So I think it’s important for us to tell a few things about our approach. >> >> First what we have today in production: >> - TA software (offline box) >> - HSM for the TA (plus backups and spare parts) >> - A few application servers running our RPKI software - I’ll call it RPKI-Core >> - Redundant HSMs used by RPKI-Core >> - RRDP publication service (cloud) >> - Some rsync nodes (internal infra) >> >> Something like the diagram below. >> >> For testing environment we have practically the same infra. >> And for public test (localcert) we use ‘soft' keys and no HSMs. >> >> >> About the new AS0 TA, yes, we could simplify our infra. >> One option would be to use ‘soft’ keys all around or use a HSM for TA only. >> We could also use third-party software for TA, Core and publication service. >> It crossed my mind, for a fraction of a second, to skip AS0 TA instances for our internal and/or public test environments. >> >> But I don’t think we should treat it as a "second class citizen". >> If we provide another TA, it’s worthy of receiving as much TLC as our production TA; meaning that it would also require the same (or similar) process around it as our production TA does. That includes keeping track of HSM card holders, defining a proper admin and operator quorum, scheduling periodical resigning sessions, etc… >> >> I’m not here to advocate against nor in favour of AS0 TA. >> But when discussing our implementation, this was our rationale to duplicate the infrastructure. >> And that’s why it would cost us a lot to implement it. >> >> Let me know you need more info about this subject. >> >> Kind regards, >> Thiago da Cruz >> Sr. software engineer - RPKI Team >> RIPE NCC >> >> >> +---------------------+ >> | | +-------+ >> | TA (offline) +------------+ HSM | >> | | +-------+ >> +---------------------+ >> >> >> >> >> +------------------------+ >> | | >> +-----------> | RRDP publication | >> | | | >> | | (cloud) | >> | | | >> +-------------------+ +-------------------+ | +------------------------+ >> | | | | Publication | >> | RPKI-Core 1 | (...) | RPKI-Core n | ----------------------> * +> >> | | | | | >> +--+-----+----+-----+ +--+------+-------+-+ | +----------------------------+ >> | | | | | | | | | >> | | +---------------+ | | | | | Rsync publication | >> | | | | | +----+ +-----------> | | >> +-----+ +-----------+ +---------+ | | | (internal infra - x nodes) | >> | | | | | | | | >> | | | +-------------------+ | | | >> | +-----------------------------------------+ | | +----------------------------+ >> | | | | | | >> +-+----+--+ + + +-+------++ >> | HSM 1 | (......................) | HSM m | >> +---------+ +---------+ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 27 Feb 2020, at 23:51, George Michaelson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Anton pointed out I may have both misunderstood and not answered your question. >>> >>> The testbed is a soft TA. In deployment, people will have to move to a >>> new (as yet not created) TAL for AS0, as long as it runs independently >>> of the mainline TAL. >>> >>> We intend running a distinct TA for AS0 until we get a clear signal >>> our community wants it integrated. We have stated concerns about the >>> automatic adoption of ASO products worldwide without visible agreement >>> of this activity, a separate TAL turns the activity from opt-out to >>> opt-in. >>> >>> We are duplicating the software signing infrastructure, but with lower >>> costs overall given commonalities. >>> >>> We are still discussing if we can run the offline-TA HSM and the >>> online production key HSM for both activities, or if we need a >>> distinct infrastructure for AS0 and mainline. Duplication overall is >>> not in APNIC's model, we rely on spares and alternate use of the HSM, >>> but production signing systems are single instances. I believe they >>> are capable of some virtualisation or segmentation but that skirts the >>> underlying physical risk/dependency. >>> >>> Sorry for not being clearer before >>> >>> -George >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:18 PM Carlos Friaças via routing-wg >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Any clue if APNIC has duplicated the infrastructure (and cost) as it is >>>> foreseen in the NCC's impact analysis...? >>>> >>>> Carlos >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Max, >>>>> >>>>> I think is too early to take a decision, and in fact I don't think we are yet in case A. >>>>> >>>>> Consensus is about justified objections. I can see also people in favor and I understand, as we usually do in any proposal discussion, that non-objection is consent. >>>>> >>>>> The only justification that I can see is from Job about possible cost. However, I don't see figures about how much it cost to develop this AS0 + how much it cost the operators to use it (if they want) vs developing the SLURM + making sure it is secure as RPKI + how much ti cost the operators to use it. >>>>> >>>>> And by the way, the AS0 is compatible with the SLURM, so opeartors can choose. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Jordi >>>>> @jordipalet >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> El 25/2/20 20:30, "routing-wg en nombre de Massimiliano Stucchi" <[email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> escribió: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> On 20/02/2020 15:39, Petrit Hasani wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four week Review Phase is to continue discussion of the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. >>>>>> >>>>>> At the end of the Review Phase, the Working Group (WG) Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. >>>>> >>>>> Today, me and the other proposers of this policy change had a meeting to >>>>> discuss the feedback we have been receiving on the list. >>>>> >>>>> We understand that many people find this proposal controversial, and >>>>> many have expressed themselves against it in the past days. >>>>> >>>>> We would like to encourage discussion and provide us with a bit of >>>>> guidance on how the community would like to proceed. At present we have >>>>> identified three ways of progressing: >>>>> >>>>> A) We can try to go ahead with this proposal, although it will be hard >>>>> to get consensus; >>>>> >>>>> B) We can drop the proposal, and leave everything as is; >>>>> >>>>> C) We can change the proposal to a different ask for RIPE NCC. The idea >>>>> could be to ask RIPE NCC to provide a SLURM file (similar to what APNIC >>>>> does), so that single users can decide if they want to feed it to their >>>>> validators. >>>>> >>>>> From what we gathered in the discussions, I think B) could be the most >>>>> sought-after decision, but we would like to propose C) as the way >>>>> forward. It would give the possibility to those who want to implement >>>>> this solution to do it in a lightweight fashion. It would for sure be >>>>> much much cheaper to implement. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, as Job already pointed out, I prepared a simple tool to >>>>> generate a SLURM file using either the Team Cymru bogons list, or >>>>> considering any unassigned space from the NRO delegated stats file. >>>>> RIPE NCC has kindly provided help and patches to improve it. If you >>>>> want to give it a go, you can find it here: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/stucchimax/rpki-as0-bogons >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for any suggestion or any discussion around this. >>>>> >>>>> Ciao! >>>>> -- >>>>> Massimiliano Stucchi >>>>> MS16801-RIPE >>>>> Twitter/Telegram: @stucchimax >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ********************************************** >>>>> IPv4 is over >>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >>>>> http://www.theipv6company.com >>>>> The IPv6 Company >>>>> >>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ********************************************** >> IPv4 is over >> Are you ready for the new Internet ? >> http://www.theipv6company.com >> The IPv6 Company >> >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
