برنامه ای ک نتونه ی گوشی روازطریق شماره سریال وکد۱۵رقمی وشماره تلفنش ردیابی کنه برنامه نیست
در تاریخ پنجشنبه ۶ مارس ۲۰۲۵، ۱۷:۵۸ Job Snijders <[email protected]> نوشت: > Dear Tim, others, > > Thank you for sharing your feedback! > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:01:25AM +0100, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > > > It probably is good to have some discussion around: > > > > > > * should perpetually broken Delegated CA setups be culled at some > point? > > > > I will leave the policy answer to this to the community. > > > > But let me share "prior art": > > > > From my previous employment I know that nic.br have a similar process > > for their member CAs. All of their member CAs are "delegated". This > > may not be apparent because most of them publish through a publication > > server and repository provided by nic.br. In any case, nic.br monitors > > for CAs that have gone offline and "prune" them if they are not > > restored in a given time. I am not entirely sure what timeline they > > use, and if it's an automated or manual process, but I believe it is > > less than 100 days. > > ah yes, yup, good to know! > > > > * is the continuous lack of a valid current manifest for a 100 day > period > > > of time a good indicator for "Delegated CA brokenness"? > > > > This is one way to do this. > > > > It requires that the parent CA (RIPE NCC in this case) monitors the > > repositories for member CA certificates that it issues to delegated > > CAs. These CAs may use the Publication-as-a-Service (PaaS) provided > > by RIPE NCC, or they could run their own publication server. > > Correct. > > > If they run their own publication server then it may be that the > > delegated CA itself is available, and as a parent we see it connecting > > regularly through RFC 6492 (provisioning protocol) exchanges, but > > their repository is unavailable. In such cases, it may be better to > > advise these CAs to migrate to using the RIPE NCC provided PaaS > > instead. > > 100% - I'd consider it a net positive whenever Delegated CAs migrate > towards using RIPE NCC's PAAS instead of running their own. > > > Another thing to note here is that revoking a CA certificate will stop > > RPKI validators from trying to get the content, and it will silence > > the warnings in the logs, but if these CAs use a shared repository - > > such as the PaaS, then the content will still be there until that is > > also actively removed. > > Yes, your observation is correct. To this point I'd argue that RPs (and > also publication point operators) simply are no worse off, as with (or > without) a revocation policy, such content continues to be distributed. > > Cleaning up 'useless data in PAAS' probably is a good next policy > proposal to consider (after having established consensus & > implementation of an non-functional CA revocation policy). > > > Delegated CAs can delegate... > > > > A member that uses a delegated CA may delegate all or some of their > > resources to "child" CAs of their own. Those CAs may publish at the > > PaaS (we currently allow the member to configure up to 10 publishers), > > or publish in their own repositories. It may happen that the member CA > > issued under RIPE NCC is functioning correctly, but their delegated > > CAs (or "grandchildren" etc) are having an issue. > > > > I think we should have clarity to the RIPE NCC what to do in such > > cases: > > - Is this out-of-scope? > > I believe "Subjects of RIPE NCC's direct subjects" are out of scope, > quite literally - because RIPE NCC's CA cannot revoke child-of-child > certificates; such certificates simply are not within the scope of RIPE > NCC's CRL. > > > - Should the RIPE NCC monitor the entire delegated member tree? > > Personally I'd monitor _at least_ the directly subordinate subjects, but > there may be advantages to having (separate?) instances monitor as much > as possible. > > > - Should the RIPE NCC revoke a member CA with broken delegated CAs? > > In short: no. > > I think strong arguments can be made that - when there is no current > valid Manifest/CRL for an extended period of time - nothing of value is > lost by revoking that non-functional CA. > > On the other hand, the moment a CA is functional (functional enough to > have delegated some authority to other CAs), the CA might serve some > purpose to someone, even though (a subset of) its subordinate products > are broken in one way or another. > > Perhaps in excess - of course a non-functional CA cannot delegate > authority, because functional delegation requires a functional CA :) > > > - Should the RIPE NCC actively engage with such member CAs, but leave > > the actions to them? > > Such an initiative probably doesn't need to be ratified in this policy > proposal, but in general it probably is good to attempt to understand > _why_ certain forms of brokenness exist in the ecosystem. Questions such > as "is the PAAS too hard to use?" "is there some kind of unforeseen > friction in one of RIPE NCC's RPKI services?" etc > > I suspect most of the time things are just broken because someone didn't > clean up the leftovers of a study / experiment - but who knows? :-) > > > If the RIPE NCC is to monitor the entire tree under a certificate > > issued to a delegated member CA, then this could amount to significant > > work. On the other hand, another advantage of such a process could > > be that the RIPE NCC can also monitor (re-actively, because it is > > always after the fact) for other bad things that can happen, such > > as CAs issuing an enormous amount of objects or delegating to a vast > > number of CAs - which may also impact RPKI validators and perhaps > > should warrant some kind of action. > > Yes, that certainly is an advantage. > > If I were to technically implement this I'd advocate for separate > monitoring pipelines so that one doesn't block the other. The > rpki-client implementation allows the RP operator to exactly specify > (through an allowlist/blocklist) how 'deep' to traverse the tree. So it > is conceivable to have instances that monitor "only the directly > subordinate CAs" and separate instances that monitor "everything under > the RIPE NCC TAL". > > > Finally, I also want to mention PaaS - once more. > > Given that Easter is just around the corner, I anticipate that the Dutch > word 'paas' will be mentioned many many times in the coming weeks ;-) > > > What may happen here is that a delegated member CA delegates to a CA > > of their own that also publishes at the PaaS. If the member CA then > > removes the delegated CA (revokes it) - that may actually continue to > > function and publish at the PaaS, or they may simply not remove their > > old content. The latter can be detected relatively easily (no more RFC > > 8181 interactions, and the manifests in the (sub-)repo are old). But > > the former is harder from the RIPE NCC perspective. > > Yeah it sounds like a separate initiative to 'automatically clean PaaS' > is warranted down the road. Where the CA's functional/non-functional > state can be deducted from the observability of a current valid > Manifest/CRL, for PaaS detecting the "liveliness of a publication > client" might need to be inferred from 8181 interactions. > > I think you raise important questions which suggest there is more work > to be done, I suspect it would be good to attempt that tackle that after > dealing with non-functional CAs first. > > > The result of not doing anything here is having content in the PaaS > > repository that is unreferenced in the RPKI tree. It may not result in > > warnings in RPKI validators, but it adds to their burden in terms of > > data usage for RRDP snapshot downloads, full rsync, and local storage > > in the validators. In short, this may also warrant thought. > > I've been tracking 'unreferenced objects' over time and have reached out > to RIRs where the number was higher than 'the usual churn'. Situations > in which excessive numbers of unreferenced objects existed were all > resolved in a timely fashion. In this context 'excessive' was > tens-of-thousands of objects. > > > I hope these observations are helpful. And I hope it is clear that > > they are not intended to dissuade people from the policy. > > Yes, thank you for chiming in. > > > There are many corner cases that we can consider, and many ways that > > we can deal with them. It may be hard to enumerate them all in a > > policy. In that I would like to echo a comment made earlier that if > > the policy describes the problem to solve rather than the solution > > this may leave us at the RIPE NCC more room to come up with a good > > solution and adjust it over time. Of course any such implementation of > > policy requirements would be published publicly and open to community > > feedback. > > Yup - we should try to avoid painting ourselves into a corner by having > to re-do the PDP because the first attempt was overly prescriptive. :) > > In closing - I want to mention I have already implemented my own > "non-functional CA detection system" and currently run two independent > instances in two cities. If this policy moves forward to the point that > RIPE NCC actually starts to study implementation, from my side there > will be an opportunity to compare notes and verify that both our > implementations arrive at the exact same outcome. I can check your > homework and you can check mine! :-) > > I'm happy to explain (in-person?) how my detection system works, share > my code, and provide access to the ongoing measurements. > > Kind regards, > > Job > > ps. Here is an overview of the top 10 locations' current number of > 'unreferenced files' in the global RPKI. > > Unref_Objects Publication_FQDN Size > 2065 rpki.apnic.net 12MB > 1776 rpki-repo.registro.br 14MB > 619 rsync.paas.rpki.ripe.net 4.4MB > 206 rpki.sub.apnic.net 1.4MB > 202 rpki.afrinic.net 1.2MB > 144 rpki-rps.arin.net 1.1MB > 39 rpki.cnnic.cn 775KB > 23 r.magellan.ipxo.com 130KB > 21 rpki.apernet.io 125KB > 20 repo.kagl.me 116KB > > The total number of objects is around 5,500 - which is not perfect, but > certainly not as bad as it has been in the past. > ----- > To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, > please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/routing-wg.ripe.net/ > As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with > the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. > More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/ >
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/routing-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
