Daily Archives

Chris Buckridge - 17-05-2021 17:29:53
Hi everyone, I'm  Chris Buckridge from the RIPE NCC. As we get ready to kick off the SCION BoF, a reminder that this chat panel is meant for discussion ONLY.  If you have questions for the speaker and you want the session chair to read it out, please write it in the Q&A window also stating your affiliation. Otherwise, you can ask questions using the microphone icon.

Chris Buckridge - 17-05-2021 17:30:11
And as always, please note that all chat transcripts will be archived and made available to the public on

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 17:40:16
To come back to the previous session: *breaking* just got an email alert that council experts will meet on 18 may to discuss NIS 2

Jan Žorž - 17-05-2021 17:54:29
Marco: cool... keep us in sync, please...

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 17:55:50
Raymond your question of "why a dedicated WG" is addressed in their blog post:

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 17:58:21
Blake, I don't see that it says why these issues can not be disucssed with in lets say the routing WG (except for the fact that they proabably already have a filled schedule).

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 17:59:22
tl;dr they state it touches many RIPE WGs in some way, & they don't want to be constrained to a particular WG

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:00:20
@jan we will, but council is closed - so don't expect much from that meeting outside of rumours

Jan Žorž - 17-05-2021 18:01:13

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:01:35
personally (just speaking for myself) the RIPE meetings' BoF timeslot seems appropriate for now, but I would be supportive of creating a SCION WG mailing list once an IETF draft has been published

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 18:02:05
That could be a good compromise (not sure myself right now)

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:03:18
for me the important question to be answered is "how does the RIPE NCC justify spending resources on SCION when a majority of members are unaware of its existence"

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:03:25
If SCION is the answer, what was the problem again? I appreciate all these efforts and open to new ideas, but a bit lost as what this is solving outside or providing a space to talk about this

Rob Evans - 17-05-2021 18:03:27
Hmm, is the same being proposed at the other RIRs, or should it be bumped a level up to the IANA to co-ordinate numbers?

Niall O'Reilly - 17-05-2021 18:03:33
@Blake: ID or a result such as RFC in "Experimental" category ?

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:03:40
good question Rob

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:04:10
@rob should it be IANA or is this IETF protocol parameter?

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:04:40
assume IANA needs to get a mandate from somewhere

Gert Doering - 17-05-2021 18:04:41
a WG as such is not incurring (much) cost to the NCC. Of course having the registry function in the NCC requires some deep consideration

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:04:48
Not picky Niall, but IMHO IETF is the appropriate standards body to get started. Let's take ENUM's inception for example...

Nathalie Trenaman - 17-05-2021 18:05:08
I was also thinking of ENUM

Niall O'Reilly - 17-05-2021 18:05:24
ID is a lower bar, which is fine by me ...

Nathalie Trenaman - 17-05-2021 18:06:04
if numbers need to be globally unique, this is NRO stuff, no? (Not opposed at all to a WG, though)

Niall O'Reilly - 17-05-2021 18:06:16
Surprise! I was thinking of ENUM too ...

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:06:19
@niall what came first with ENUM? IETF and e§ or the RIPE WG?

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:06:33
Niall: you have enough ENUM experience :)

Gert Doering - 17-05-2021 18:06:39
@nathalie: IETF->IANA/NRO->RIRs is the "standard flow" for "Internet numbers"

Gert Doering - 17-05-2021 18:06:47
now, SCION is not "Internet"

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:07:09
I'm still not sure I want this SCION thingy at all…

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:07:15
Is it or isn't - I'm still confused

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 18:07:25
+1 to Jan

Gert Doering - 17-05-2021 18:07:30
Marco: if it is, it needs to happen in IETF...

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 18:07:33
[ esp. to RIPE =! IETF ]

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:07:33
+1 to Jan indeed

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:07:35
+1 to Jan

Mirjam Kühne - 17-05-2021 18:07:36
@Marco: IETF was first, then RIPE WG, then RIPE NCC service (if I remember correctly).

Ignas Bagdonas - 17-05-2021 18:07:45
Niall - anyone can write an ID, there is no barrier at all. If we are talking about the RFC, even an experimental one, given the width and depth of the ocean, just warming it up will easily take years. Given that this proposal attempts to redo a global routing system and does not have details at this time, that will easily be a decade to get something tangible.

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:08:06
correction to my earlier statement: BoF mailing list or so...

Niall O'Reilly - 17-05-2021 18:08:10
Thx, Ignas

Jim Reid - 17-05-2021 18:08:33
We could always do create one WG, close another.

Ignas Bagdonas - 17-05-2021 18:08:39
The fundamental question is more on the lines of whether this work is suitale for RIPE at all.

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:09:12
An interesting example of another "parallel network" I'm following at the moment is

Gert Doering - 17-05-2021 18:09:19
I think AfriNIC would be a wonderful place

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 18:09:22
To me (but then I'm not an engineer) RIPE always targeted topics that were a little bit more "there" already

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:09:25
@ignas and important apart from IETF, would there be alternatives?

Sam Hitz - 17-05-2021 18:09:28
eventually IETF -> IANA -> RIRs would definitely make sense. We are planning to submit a draft at the IETF. In the meantime, SCION is being used in production today and there is a need to coordinate numbering. We thought a more "bottom-up" approach could lead to quicker progress cycles.

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:09:57
+1 to Gert :D

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:10:21
@sam can you elaborate on how the current system is governed, by whom and under what rules?

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:10:26
And +1 to Franziska. RIPE is not a place for research for for current operational issues

Gert Doering - 17-05-2021 18:10:35
seriously: if the NCC is to take up the number secretariat and certification role, funding needs to be clarified

Jim Reid - 17-05-2021 18:10:45
@Sam, I'm uncomfortable with that 'bottom up' approach because it bypasses IANA or short-circuits that process

Gert Doering - 17-05-2021 18:10:46
existing members (paying the bill) would need to be asked

Nathalie Trenaman - 17-05-2021 18:10:49
@sander SCION is not a "research" thing anymore

Nathalie Trenaman - 17-05-2021 18:10:55
that was 2 years ago

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:10:59
@sander do we need a RIPE Research WG? A bit like IEPG?

Ignas Bagdonas - 17-05-2021 18:10:59
When OF at a time were looking for home, they (mostly) created ONF/now-LF.

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:11:03
Ouroboros is doing a bunch of cool stuff, & interdomain networking, etc. but I don't think they're ready for even a BoF slot yet. maybe one day

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 18:11:40
I explicity tried not to say "research" :) but still

Sandra Murphy - 17-05-2021 18:11:44
@marco: I would think IRTF, not IEPG.

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:12:03
Daniel +1

Sam Hitz - 17-05-2021 18:12:24
@Marco apart from the SSFN there no real governance for isolation domains (which is something that is enabled by the architecture), thus there is kind of a vacuum state for everything else. In there of protocol and implementations, the protocol is public domain (there is a SCION book - a second edition coming this fall). This summer a dedicated SCION foundation will be set up to take ownership of the open source code base and drive forward standardization work.

Nathalie Trenaman - 17-05-2021 18:12:38
I agree with Daniel here

Peter Koch - 17-05-2021 18:12:44
Maybe we need a research group rather than a WG

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:12:44
@nathalie: there is a handful of people playing with it, it is not a widely used protocol in the internet, it hasn't gone through the IETF process, so as far as I am concerned it's pre-production and likely research

Sam Hitz - 17-05-2021 18:12:57
@Jim that's a fair point

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:13:09
@peter +1

Nathalie Trenaman - 17-05-2021 18:13:11
Peter: but then you classify SCION as "just research", which it isn't anymore

Sam Hitz - 17-05-2021 18:13:22
but findings of the RIPE pilot could then be used to inform decisions at IANA

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:13:28
RRG instead of RWG

Ignas Bagdonas - 17-05-2021 18:13:29
Having read the SCION book, I cannot call that as a source of information for interoperable implementations.

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 18:13:35
Peter, with my research hat on: It's important to remove the label "research" if they're beyond that. We need a state in between

Peter Koch - 17-05-2021 18:13:56
SRG should be attractive to CH ;-)

Ignas Bagdonas - 17-05-2021 18:14:03
Higher level overview - yes, suitable for limited domain experimentation - likely, for a broader scope use - no.

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:14:07
"protocol design phase" instead of the R word?

Robert Kisteleki - 17-05-2021 18:14:17
[personal opinion] LISP started in the IETF. the NCC has been supporting it for a while now (I *think* we still do) -- yet it doesn't have (never had) its own WG. it's a pretty high barrier to do so

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 18:14:41
Sander, better :) the "R" word is quite tainted (and rightfully so :) )

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:14:55
robert: I don't think anything special was done for LISP

Peter Koch - 17-05-2021 18:15:06
I like the idea to think about governance/policy issues early on in a real life operational context

Sam Hitz - 17-05-2021 18:15:14
@Ignas: absolutely the SCION book is not enough to implement the system. That's why we are working on an official draft that includes a specification

Robert Kisteleki - 17-05-2021 18:15:15
@sander that'

Robert Kisteleki - 17-05-2021 18:15:20
s kind of my point :)

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:15:24

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:15:34
@peter +1

Ignas Bagdonas - 17-05-2021 18:15:38
LISP has a pretty limited scope, and the deliverables in fact delivered the promises. With real world deployments.

Sam Hitz - 17-05-2021 18:15:38
furthermore there is the open source reference implementation available at

Peter Koch - 17-05-2021 18:17:42
I'd rather prefer a format that avoids the PDP/appeals/WGCC overhead; if 'research' is a problem, 'special interest group' might be better - but that's just naming; the scheduling and the policy scope and liability would remain as issues to solve

Thorben Krüger - 17-05-2021 18:17:45
There is also

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:18:21
If I can make a suggestion to the SCION team: build a community. take your presentation to regional NOGs, NOFs, open source software conferences, etc. get people curious. this is probably the best way to get wider traction for your project

Jan Žorž - 17-05-2021 18:18:43
+1 Blake

Nathalie Trenaman - 17-05-2021 18:18:54
Blake: I've seen at least 5 SCION presentations in the last 2 years...

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 18:18:57
I think they're in the process - I've encountered them in multiple venues by now incl FOSDEM

Nathalie Trenaman - 17-05-2021 18:19:26
but back then, it was very theoretical

Robert Kisteleki - 17-05-2021 18:19:33
The routing-wg has the following definition: "The Routing Working Group is concerned with *all aspects of IP routing technologies*. This includes dissemination and discussion of issues affecting operators, *new technologies* and new applications of current technologies, and discussion of concerns relevant to inter and intra-AS routing."

Robert Kisteleki - 17-05-2021 18:19:39
emphasis mine

Nathalie Trenaman - 17-05-2021 18:19:41
now, we see it starting in production networks

Daniel Karrenberg - 17-05-2021 18:20:20
@ ruediger: i read in the proposed charter that the WG would be the place to develop those requirements!

Daniel Karrenberg - 17-05-2021 18:20:35
oops: the ! should have been a .

Sandra Murphy - 17-05-2021 18:20:44
@Robert K: LISP started in the IRTF Routing Research Group, and LISP became an IETF wg and still is. (list archive shows they requested a session slot for the next IETF meeting, so still active)

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 18:20:47
[ I do not mean to sound judging here so bare with me ] Nathalie, do we have some kind of "user base" within the RIPE community ?

Sam Hitz - 17-05-2021 18:20:55
@rüdiger a lot of the extra information that you were referring to are actually contained in the path segment and dynamically dispersed throughout the network

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:21:15
I get the feeling that the people SCION are trying hard to make us believe we need it, but they have never convinced me. To me it is still a solution looking for problems

Nathalie Trenaman - 17-05-2021 18:21:39
@Franziska excellent question for the team

Jelte Jansen - 17-05-2021 18:22:03
but assuming that this is indeed a topic for operational and/or policy discussions between ripe members, is it of enough interest to routing at this point? Otherwise shoving all scion discussion in there will likely be unproductive to both 'existing routing' and scion discussions

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:22:04
A handful of networks deploying doesn't convince me that it is bigger than that

Erik Bais - 17-05-2021 18:22:21
Franziska : Use case or user base .. Or both . ?

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 18:22:51
Erik, I was explicity sayin user base - because I think RIPE is less about potential use cases than use base (i.e. people actually affected)

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:23:13
@sander that was IPv6 and ENUM as well, don't think that is an immediate reason to dismiss an idea

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:23:35
Question for the RIPE community: if the SCION community needs registry services (which seems to be perhaps their primary interest as far as the RIPE is concerned), would the RIPE membership support the SCION community contracting the RIPE NCC for such services?

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:23:59
Jelte +1

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:24:07
@marco: very true, but I think more work and consensus building needs to happen before it becomes an operational thing

Erik Bais - 17-05-2021 18:24:10
Blake : that is a GM question ... or something to ask in Services-WG.

Sandra Murphy - 17-05-2021 18:24:10
@ruediger: I also am a bit confused by the use of AS numbers for SCION ASs - so would there be NCC AS certs for existing BGP ASs and SCION CA certs for new SCION ASs? and such.

Ignas Bagdonas - 17-05-2021 18:25:29
The "BGP Practitioners" aka Routing WG has a mailing list which is an open communications channel. Except of one announcement, there have been no discussions on the topic of SCION. Do the proponents feel that the topics of SCION could not be discussed there?

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:25:38
Can we get those interested parties to present on this and help us understand the use case?

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:25:41
not to sound skeptical here but perhaps another RIR would be happy to simply take your money & provide registry services?

Jim Reid - 17-05-2021 18:25:51
How about informal side meetings at RIPE instead of a new WG?

Daniel Karrenberg - 17-05-2021 18:26:01
Some of the discussion reminds me of the resistance RIPE encountered in the NREN community before it was formed. I read the charter as a proposal to develop requirements for a *pilot* registry service and to develop consensus for this pilot to be executed by the RIPE NCC.

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 18:26:29
Jim, yes that woudl for example give us an idea how many people are actually interested/involved (like a base line)

Sander Steffann - 17-05-2021 18:26:41
I like Jim's idea

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:27:02
Jim exactly, I'm fine with continuing this SCION BoF

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:27:27
that's kinda the point of BoFs :-) if you just need a community mailing list a RIPE WG is not needed for that...

Blake Willis - 17-05-2021 18:29:12
IMHO figure out the maximum ISD scaling size, & set your namespace to that :-)

Jan Žorž - 17-05-2021 18:31:12
instead of using time for WG request - we could use this time today to discuss SCION technology instead.

Daniel Karrenberg - 17-05-2021 18:31:18
The number of questions and engagement I see here is another indicator to me to support that we try a WG.

Franziska Lichtblau - 17-05-2021 18:31:48
engagement doesnt mean endorsement (not saying that I have a final oppinion)

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:32:00
Mailing list to draft a charter?

Jan Žorž - 17-05-2021 18:32:00
+1 to Franzisca

Chris Buckridge - 17-05-2021 18:32:16
Password: RIPE82Networking

Marco Hogewoning - 17-05-2021 18:32:25
need a place to do that

Daniel Karrenberg - 17-05-2021 18:32:32
i was not implying endorsement. i just observe that the amount of discussion.

Chris Buckridge - 17-05-2021 18:32:44
….and that’s all folks for Meetecho today, folks! But for those keen to keep the community vibe going, we have a virtual “Meet the RIPE Chair, Mirjam Kühne and the RIPE Vice-Chair, Niall O’Reilly” session starting in SpatialChat shortly (running from 18:30-19:00), followed by a virtual “Meet the RIPE NCC Executive Board” from 19:00-19:30.