[db-wg] In-band notification mechanism?

I am in favor of making this a feature available to non-members aswell, 
but due to how it is structured you might still want a whitelist, but 
remove the requirement for membership.

- Cynthia

On 2019-03-23 22:34, ripedenis--- via db-wg wrote:
> Hi Aris
>
> This is what I was thinking you were looking for. I just wanted to be 
> clear. Knowing how the database is structured I can think of ways of 
> doing this, but it would be for the RIPE NCC to assess feasibility. I 
> think it may be easier to do it as a service to members than making it 
> a more general feature for anyone.
>
> Does anyone else agree on the need for such a feature? If so perhaps 
> we can create a new Numbered Work Item.
>
> cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB-WG
>
>
> On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 19:21:01 CET, Aris Lambrianidis 
> <aris.lambrianidis at ams-ix.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Denis,
>
> We, and other IXPs, create filters (prefix-lists) for services such as 
> route servers, by parsing aut-num and as-set objects from IRR 
> databases, such as the RIPE database, using tools such as bgpq3.
>
> Right now, to the best of my knowledge, the only way to maintain those 
> filters up to date for all of our route server peers, is to 
> periodically poll IRR databases for changes.
> IMO it would seem more efficient if the database itself notified us of 
> any changes, rather than us constantly asking the same question(s).
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> That said, I can also think of other use cases in which interested 
> parties having no direct relationship to certain objects and their 
> maintainers are interested in finding out of any changes,
> especially in the field of research, but let me not delve into this 
> and keep things simple for the time being.
>
> Kind regards,
> Aris
>
> ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk <mailto:ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote on 
> 23/03/2019 02:26:
>> Hi Aris
>>
>> Can you clarify one point about this. Are you saying you want to be 
>> notified if someone changes their data that you have no direct 
>> relationship with? So if I maintain a set object and you are not part 
>> of my company and have no direct business relationship with me and I 
>> have no idea who you are, but if I modify this object you want to be 
>> notified?
>>
>> cheers
>> denis
>> co-chair DB-WG
>>
>> On Saturday, 23 March 2019, 01:02:48 CET, Aris Lambrianidis via db-wg 
>> <db-wg at ripe.net> <mailto:db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Wilfried,
>>
>> Thank you for the effort in helping out!
>>
>> Unfortunately this will not do as:
>>
>> 1. It notifies via an "out-of-band" method (i.e. email). This makes
>> it difficult (but not impossible) to handle with automation.
>> Nonetheless, the
>> more elegant way would be through an API leveraging a push mechanism.
>>
>> but more importantly:
>>
>> 2. the "notify:" attribute has to actually be configured with an address
>> of the
>> interested party for it to work.
>>
>> However I'm looking for mechanism for interested parties to be 
>> notified of
>> any changes in objects independently to what the maintainer has 
>> configured
>> as a notify address.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Aris
>>
>>
>> Wilfried Wöber wrote on 22/03/2019 21:50:
>> > Hi Aris!
>> >
>> > Is this what you are looking for?
>> >
>> > 
>> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/support/documentation/ripe-database-documentation/notifications/9-2-notification-messages/9-2-1-notification-attributes
>> >
>> > I may be off-track, of course :-)
>> > Wilfried
>> >
>> > On 22/03/2019 20:29, Aris Lambrianidis via db-wg wrote:
>> >> Dear all,
>> >>
>> >> Back in the day, RFC1996 introduced the NOTIFY mechanism in DNS, 
>> which significantly helped with information propagation delay,
>> >> as it facilitated the transition from a pull (poll) to a push 
>> (interrupt) model.
>> >>
>> >> The problem we, as AMS-IX, are facing is quite similar when it 
>> comes to polling the RIPE database for changes. This seems
>> >> inefficient.
>> >>
>> >> Although the analogy breaks down quickly, as there are no RIPE 
>> database "clients" similar to DNS slave servers
>> >> parsing NOTIFY messages, we would love to see any RIPE API created 
>> or extended, or any other mechanism implemented by which
>> >> a client "registers interest" for any objects it wants to be 
>> notified of changes.
>> >>
>> >> As a simple example, if we were to "register interest" (e.g. via a 
>> REST POST or PUT method) for the AS-AMS-IX-SET as-set object, we would be
>> >> programmatically notified whenever the "last-modified" field of 
>> the as-set was changed.
>> >>
>> >> Based on the above, I have 3 questions:
>> >> 1. Does something like what is described above already exist?
>> >> 2. If it doesn't exist, would others be interested on such 
>> functionality?
>> >> 3. If it doesn't exist, while knowing that this is only a high 
>> level overview of the concept and many details are missing, is this 
>> generally feasible?
>> >>
>> >> Kind regards,
>> >> Aris Lambrianidis
>> >> AMS-IX
>> >>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20190323/5e0bd3e3/attachment.html>