[db-wg] Interest to continue NWI-9

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 <job at ntt.net> 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
> > <db-wg at ripe.net> 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
> > >
> >