Cooperation Working Group Minutes RIPE 90
Thursday, 15 May 2025, 14:00 - 15:30 (UTC+1)
Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek
Chairs: Johan (Julf) Helsingius, Desiree Miloshevic and Achilleas Kemos
Status: Draft
Read the stenography transcript
1. Administrativia
Desiree introduced the agenda.
2. BEREC Report on IP Interconnection Ecosystem
Améedée Von Moltke, BEREC Open Internet Working Group Co-Chairs
The recording is available at:
https://ripe90.ripe.net/archives/video/1660/
Améedé shared BEREC’s report on the IP interconnection ecosystem to see what had changed since their last report in 2017, particularly in regards to developments from the “Fair Share” discussions. The report concluded that IP interconnection still worked effectively, with growing traffic and decreasing prices due to various technological developments and market competition, although there was some artificial traffic congestion. Ultimately, there was balanced interdependence in the ecosystem due to a bargaining relationship between ISPs and large content and application providers (CAPs). The report recommended a case-by-case study for whether IP interconnection should be in scope for open Internet regulation.
3. Our Vulnerable Infrastructure
3.1 Submarine Fiber-Optic Cable Connections in the Baltic Sea: Vulnerabilities and Threats
CDR (ret.) Olli Peltonen, Copoy Oy
The recording is available at:
https://ripe90.ripe.net/archives/video/1661/
Olli presented his analysis of the recent damage to submarine Internet cables in the Baltic Sea. He argued that this damage was due to deliberate sabotage of this critical infrastructure. He then shared insights into the repair efforts for the cables, which were initially accomplished fairly quickly by cable ships. However, the need for simultaneous repairs presented challenges due to the limited resources available for these specialised efforts. Network redundancy had limited the negative effects of these cuts, but he recommended preparing a crisis response in the event of widespread cable damage.
Jim Reid, consultant, asked for clarification about one of the cable cut incidents involving a dragging ship anchor and if there was any reason for the anchor to have been lowered. He also asked if there had been any penalties for it. Olli said there was no reason to drag an anchor in that manner and that it should have been noticed. Jim commented that there had been a recent ship crash due to human error and suggested that was possible in this case as well. Regarding the penalties, Olli said the ship had been seized and held in Finland but was eventually let go.
Ondřej Surý, speaking for himself, asked whether some of the ships had disabled their identification system. Olli said they had, as this was how the shadow fleet operated.
Rüdiger Volk asked if a hostile actor could place explosives on the cables to destroy redundancy. Olli said this was possible, so it was important to remember this was critical infrastructure and keep these risks in mind.
Emile Aben of the RIPE NCC said this was one reason why it was important to share the Internet in good faith.
3.2 Observations on the Effect of Cable Cuts on the Internet
Emile Aben, RIPE NCC
The recording is available at:
https://ripe90.ripe.net/archives/video/1663/
Emile also discussed the cable cuts in the Baltic Sea. He shared an analysis from the RIPE NCC research team on how these cuts had affected routing. The team had not found significant packet loss in the cuts they studied, although there was a small shift in latency visible in RIPE Atlas. Their conclusion was that the Internet could route around damage, provided that there was enough redundancy between and within networks. He stressed the importance of Internet measurement and monitoring to ensure redundancy.
3.3 An Internet Perspective on the April 28 Power Outage in Spain and Portugal
David Belson, Cloudflare
The recording is available at:
https://ripe90.ripe.net/archives/video/1664/
David shared insights into the recent power outage in Spain and Portugal. Using Cloudflare Radar, he found that traffic dropped significantly in Spain and especially in Portugal, where it fell by up to 93%, although there were some spikes in traffic through a mobile provider. Network quality had also been affected, with reduced download speeds and drops in latency, also more so in Portugal than in Spain. In Spain, however, IPv6 had been significantly more affected than IPv4.
Maynard Koch of TU Dresden asked if he had looked at regions that had stayed connected. David said he suspected these regions stayed connected due to a different connection to the grid. David noted he had published a blog post with more detail.
Eduardo Duarte of ICANN said some networks had only slowed, and some operators turned off 5G because of the high volumes of mobile traffic for which they did not have enough capacity.
Maria Isabel Gandia of CSUC/CATNIX noted that in her experience in Spain, she did not lose connection thanks to power generators. From the perspective of the Internet exchange, providers continued operating, but there were fewer users.
Rodrigo Arenas of NIC Chile asked if he could use this data to look at the blackout that had taken place in Chile. David this was possible and invited him to reach out if he needed assistance doing so.
Emile Aben said RIPE Atlas also had data for all the recent blackouts, and the data indicated most core Internet infrastructure had continued functioning.
Robert Kisteleki of the RIPE NCC asked if there had been an increase in traffic to social media. David said he had not looked into this.
Desiree Miloshevic asked why more IPv6 addresses had gone down. David said he did not have information on this but that it would be possible to look into.
4. Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Internet Standards Deployment
Rüdiger Martin and Goran Milenkovic, European Commission
The recording is available at:
https://ripe90.ripe.net/archives/video/1666/
Rüdiger Martin shared that NIS2 set up many technological and methodological requirements for cybersecurity risk management, which affected many stakeholders. He presented their solution to address the implementation of these, which was a multistakeholder forum on Internet standards deployment intended to offer guidance on best practices and standards, as well as deployment techniques.
Goran Milenkovic shared their progress so far in developing this forum. There would be four workstreams: network layer communication protocols, email security protocols, DNS security and Internet routing, each with a chair and a technical editorial group that would regularly meet. The proposed timeline was to establish the forum in Q3 2025, with draft guidelines published by the end of 2026 and final guidelines by mid-2027. They would soon publish a call for participation and hold a kickoff meeting in September.
Lars Liman from Netnod said there were already too many fora for standardisation and another was not needed. He asked why they would not instead build on preexisting structures and standards. He also noted that operators outside of the EU might be negatively affected as they might face competing requirements from non-EU regulators. He asked who would pay the cost of this.
Ulrich Wisser, speaking for himself, asked why they did not instead join other multistakeholder processes and asked why people should join theirs.
Alejandro Fernández of Global Cyber Alliance invited them to speak at the MANRS meeting next week.
Andrew Campling of 419 Consulting said initiatives encouraged adoption, which was low in some parts of the EU. Standards were mainly developed by software developers, so it would be helpful to have more people involved from the operational end at fora such as the IETF.
Rüdiger acknowledged there were several preexisting fora but said many stakeholders needed comprehensive guidelines, and the new forum’s work might resolve contradictions in existing standards. He noted that an implementation plan would not necessarily require certain steps and that their forum would be multistakeholder so that regulators could not impose standards. He added that they would be happy to present at MANRS.
Goran invited attendees to write to them with other comments and questions. Regarding the comment about EU regulation on external regulators, he expressed a hope that the EU would lead on this regulation.
5. RIPE NCC Middle East Update
Chafic Chaya, RIPE NCC
The recording is available at:
https://ripe90.ripe.net/archives/video/1668/
Chafic presented on the RIPE NCC’s activities in the Middle East. There were unique considerations in this region, as there were various governance models, economic scales and complex geopolitics. While western Internet governance was typically community-driven and bottom-up, in the Middle East it was government-driven and top-down, requiring a different approach. Chafic shared how the RIPE NCC engaged with various regional stakeholders through capacity development and activities such as government roundtables and signing Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with regulatory bodies. These efforts had led to clear results, such as a spike in RPKI deployment in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Syria after RIPE NCC training there.
6. AOB
Working Group Chairs
The recording is available at:
https://ripe90.ripe.net/archives/video/1669/
There was no other business. Desiree thanked attendees and closed the meeting.