Minutes | ENOG 9

9-10 June 2015, Kazan, Russia

The Eurasia Network Operators’ Group (ENOG) is the regional forum in which experts concerned with the core operational issues of the Internet can share knowledge and expertise on issues unique to the Russian Federation, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and Eastern Europe.
The ENOG 9/RIPE NCC Regional Meeting took place on 9-10 June at the Grand Hotel Kazan in Kazan, Russia. A total of 221 attendees from 14 countries participated in the meeting, 182 of whom were from Russia.

Tuesday 9 June

Opening Plenary, 15:00 – 16:30

Welcome to ENOG 9

Serge Radovcic, RIPE NCC
Timur Zaripov, Ministry of Information and Communication of Tartarstan
Elena Voronina, MSK-IX
Sergey Myasoedov, ENOG Programme Committee

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/26-enog-update.ppt

SSAC View on the IANA Transition

– Patrik Fältström, Netnod

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/21-SSAC_Activities_Update_ENOG-patrik.pdf

Programmable, Programmable, Model Driven & Application Aware Multi-layer SDN with Segment Routing and OpenDayLight (ODL)

– Jeff Tantsura, Ericsson

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/10-Programmable,_Model_Driven_&_Application_Aware_Multi-layer_SDN_with_Segment_Routing_and_OpenDayLight_(ODL).pptx

Plenary, 17:00 – 19:15

RIPE vs RIPE NCC: From the Beginning to After the NTIA Transition

– Hans Petter Holen, RIPE Chair

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/28-ENOG_9_-_RIPE_vs_RIPE_NCC_from_the_beginning_to_after_the_NTIA_transition.pdf

Hans Petter presented on the history of RIPE and talked about the NTIA transition, explaining where the numbers community was in the process.

Dmitry Burkov, RIPE NCC Executive Board, asked what they expected they would do in the next few weeks.

Hans Petter replied that he expected they would complete the SLA, but it would depend on whether the names community could meet the deadline, which he thought was doubtful.

Sergey Myasodev asked what they would do if the names community couldn’t submit an acceptable proposal within the time frame.

Hans Petter replied that if they couldn’t make it in time, they would simply resubmit the proposal in few months or a year, however there was an election coming up in the United States and this might affect the process.

Dmitry said people would use all available means to influence the upcoming election. He said that a US politician had recently said that the US was still in Germany, so why would it withdraw its occupation of the Internet? He asked if they needed a single IANA and said he had previously suggested that IANA could be divided. He said the IETF had been reluctant on this in the past, but now even the SSAC was highlighting this as a risk. He said they were entering the period of big politics.

Hans Petter agreed and said that the politics weren’t about IP addresses.

Axel Pawlik said there was always the possibility that the contract could be changed and those communities that had their proposals in on time could be let go a little bit earlier. He said there had been discussions that the NTIA contract could be extended only for the names component. He said that operationally the numbers community was happy, as IANA had served them well for 15 years. He said this was mostly about politics.

An audience member asked if the NRO was ready to be formalised from a bureaucratic point of view, as the running cost was less than half of one person.

Dmitry said he would like to add that the whole staff off IANA was just 12 people. He said mostly this was part time work that involved responding to enquiries and preparing documentation. He said this wasn’t much much. He said the question of whether they should establish the NRO was caused by functions of IANA. He said if they decided they needed someone to fulfil that role, they could solve that quite quickly. He said currently they could do without any joint operation of registries. He said the question of jurisdiction was important everywhere, as was the question of risk. He said law enforcement had thought they would be able to identify everyone using IP addresses, but this illusion ended a few years ago.

The Internet User Experience in the Russian Federation

– Peter Cladingbowl, IXcellerate

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/16-ENOG9_Eurasia_Peering_ver_1.pptx

Global Routing Analysis in the Volga Region

– Eugene Uskov, HLL LLC

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/25-ENOG.pdf

Birds of a Feather

Working Groups at ENOG

– Anton Baskov, Alexey Semenyaka and Alexander Isavnin

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/30-2015.06.09_-_ENOG_WG.pdf

Legal Aspects of IP Space Transitions in Russia

– Alexey Semenyaka, Qrator Labs

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/27-20150609_ENOG.pptx

Wednesday 10 June

Plenary, 10:00 – 11:30

RIPE NCC Technical Services Update

https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/37-RIPENCC_ENOG9_Technical_Services_final.pdf

Alexander Isavnin, Tech. S.A, asked if Kaveh could talk a little bit more about the new website, such as the advantages of the new design, and any further planned developments.

Kaveh replied that there had been a presentation dealing with this at RIPE 70 and this would be available in the archive on the meeting website. He said there was the issue that a lot of the older documentation on the website needed to be retained, but clearly marked as deprecated, while at the same time making it easier to navigate through. He said the website search had been greatly improved and the RIPE NCC had taken care to communicate regularly to the community throughout the process, including one Labs article three months before the launch, and another one month before. He said the new site was modern and was easier to use on mobile phones.

Alexander noted that the ENOG website was over five years old and asked if the RIPE NCC had any plans to develop this and provide the community with a new website.

Kaveh said he couldn’t speak to that directly, but they were trying to support NOGs and he was sure they could do something more if the community wanted that. Kaveh said if they had feedback, they could give it to any RIPE NCC staff member and they would make sure it reached the right person. He said community feedback was very useful.

Dmirty Kohmanyuk, Hostmaster, said it would be helpful to have an article explaining how the new website that was visible from the front page of the website.

RIPE NCC Report

– Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/34-ENOG_9_-_RIPE_NCC_Update.pdf

There were no questions.

New gTLD Program: Results, Challenges, Perspectives

– Michael Yakushev, ICANN

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/38-Kazan_2015_June_ENOG.pptx

Plenary, 12:00 – 13:30

NIX.CZ Development: a Broader View

– Martin Semrad, NIX.CZ

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/33-ENOG9.pptx

Advances in Peering Technologies

– Alexander Ilin, MSK-IX

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/44-msk-ix-enog-9-kazan.pdf

Netnod Update

– Martin Eriksson, Netnod

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/36-Netnod_update_ENOG9_150610.key

Panel: The Many Faces of Distributed Peering and Russia’s IXP Ecosystem

Moderator: Elena Voronina, MSK-IX
Panelists:

Konstantin Bekreyev, ULN-IX
Dmitry Krikov, NGENIX
Alexey Rogdev, Rostelecom
Martin Semrad, NIX.CZ
Kazimir Vojtkevich, RED-IX

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/42-panel-IXP-ENOG9.pptx

Plenary, 15:00 – 17:00

Comparison of Traffic Balancing Methods

– Sergey Zubov, CDNvideo

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/6-Выравнивание_трафика_Зубов.ppt

Blacklist Monitoring

– Dmitry Belyavsky, Technical Center of Internet (TCI)

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/8-Blacklists_ENOG.pptx

FOSS in TELCOS

– Evgeny Zobnitsev, Factor Group

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/15-FOSSinTelecom-ENOG9-v3.pdf

FastNetMon – Open Source Toolkit for DDoS Attack Mitigation

– Pavel Odintsov, FastVPS Eesti OU

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/17-FastNetMon_ENOG_pdf.pdf

Closing Plenary, 17:30 – 18:30

Update on Internet Governance

– Maxim Burtikov, RIPE NCC

This presentation is available at:
https://www.enog.org/presentations/enog-9/41-ENOG_9_-_Internet_Governance_Update.key

Maxim Burtikov gave an Internet governance overview, and went over the status of the IANA transition.

An audience member asked about jurisdiction issues to do with ICANN and the SLA.

Maxim replied that the SLA was based on the current contract with ICANN so he didn’t know what jurisdiction they would use. He said the current IANA operator was ICANN and noted they already had headquarters in Istanbul, Geneva and other places. He added that they would likely be based in the US.

Dimitri Kohmanyuk asked what would happen if they didn’t meet the deadline.

Maxim said the NTIA already had the right to prolong the contract and after the upcoming ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires they would all understand what they were going to do.

Axel Pawlik said the NTIA had made it clear that it expected a community proposal that made them comfortable that the policy development and services would be done as they had been previously. He said the implementation on the number community’s part would be about 30 days and then they would be done.

Maxim said this allowed them to be confident and look to the future. He said they had observed all the terms and conditions and they didn’t see any threats that required them to hold up the process. He said in the event that they needed to implement a Plan B, it would not result in a catastrophe.

Lightning Talks

Logjam: new dangers for secure protocols