IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] RRDP / RSYNC / Other?

Ties de Kock <tdekock@ripe.net> Fri, 12 January 2024 08:39 UTC

Return-Path: <tdekock@ripe.net>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF014C14F70C; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:39:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ripe.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xsaCraOX6_-r; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:39:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx-2.ripe.net (mail-mx-2.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1312]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70052C14F6FF; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 00:39:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ripe.net; s=s1-ripe-net; h=To:Message-Id:Cc:Date:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type ; bh=/XWGFu8O7VsVTnQ+Ebh5YnuvSuLsCn9yPMEIN+lk978=; b=X69k5eRrM5cHCjUs+End0neD t6AlXO6ZuqL4/yT+SRc+mHb19McN0xTrBIauKqoKWgLISfMmb8Dau4gko8lrhPryGxv5lrdco5Fwm kyLV1+PK8j3f3OgeeJ1SDNa+FuVpxwY7P9iPGGYgq4kOALXAFOwrAntC5sbB5GphsGTJDO+zxCjMc /LZODnhKdNIvmcdIKdJpjJKyNFdwCrfSFPkhRK4ZWXGWM1q0GN3GByg66etXg274czzVydynY9VeM iINwyPlhiS/du8x1yKCUiBZwXkSDr5weFDYlEQBmuR8usC08QSeQCc7wjQ1EGDD67nsV58FZs4FwQ Q9cV/GMpDw==;
Received: from imap-01.ripe.net ([2001:67c:2e8:23::c100:170e]:38328) by mail-mx-2.ripe.net with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96.2) (envelope-from <tdekock@ripe.net>) id 1rOD4A-00DtHI-2k; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:39:02 +0000
Received: from sslvpn.ipv6.ripe.net ([2001:67c:2e8:9::c100:14e6] helo=smtpclient.apple) by imap-01.ripe.net with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96.2) (envelope-from <tdekock@ripe.net>) id 1rOD4A-00D279-2N; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:39:02 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.300.61.1.2\))
From: Ties de Kock <tdekock@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLab1xknRY=oCZzyXe7Dtyc8to46rVfE-1BzzuMUkWCNtLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 09:38:52 +0100
Cc: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>, sidrops-ads@ietf.org, SIDROps Chairs <sidrops-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C611B5E6-CEB3-45EC-B713-6D4C87E4B909@ripe.net>
References: <CAL9jLab1xknRY=oCZzyXe7Dtyc8to46rVfE-1BzzuMUkWCNtLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.300.61.1.2)
X-RIPE-Signature: 059faafd1cc22ebb05e1592c815fe1e15877f3e7efddf61bf86a81983344c1eb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/6-XsTEqgq7ew-vSJSh4E-RPJRCQ>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] RRDP / RSYNC / Other?
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:39:09 -0000

Hi Chris,

I think the implementations and deployments have significantly progressed since that draft started. 


> On 12 Jan 2024, at 04:52, Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Howdy WG folks,
> The 'prefer rrdp' draft has been sitting(expired)  for a while, I had
> thought when the document started life there was a set of good reasons
> for this plan. I think I still want to prefer 'not rsync' on my RP
> deployment :)
> 
> I believe that a longer term goal for rrdp (and the draft in question)
> was to eventually decommission/deprecate the RSYNC code paths, as
> well.
> 
> In light of the original reasonings for RRDP development:
>  * standard(ized) transport protocol (http)
>  * scalability and cacheability of the content
>  * easier to inspect/debug service(s)
>  (there may be others,  don't think right now its important that there are)
> 
> and the original arguments against RSYNC as the protocol for long term use:
>  * how could this possibly scale!
>  * i can ship random bits  to all RPs and they can't NOT accept them
>  * wow is this a bear to deal with in a programmatic manner!
>  (there may be others, not important right now what they are)
> 
> Is it time that we fresh-slate thought about this problem?
> I believe we CAN swap in 'anything' that has a URL type naming/pointing form
>  (perhaps we would need to define new url protocols, but...)
> I think if we had a solid option, with running code we could talk
> about removing rsync, preferring rrdp and testing the 'new thing'...
> or some form of that ordering.
> 
> Should we take up a discussion and work to investigate a RRDP replacement?

We have written down some of this experience implicitly (e.g. it is the
motivation for some choices in draft-timbru-sidrops-publication-server-bcp-01).

Does it make sense to write down those lessons learned more explicitly as a
first step if we want to take a fresh look at a replacement?

Kind regards,
Ties

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status