So we got a response from the flink thread, I would recommend reading it but a quick summary is that Flink already planned to move from classic remoting to artery[1] however they hit issues which is why they are still on classic remoting.
Hence they also have a preference for Pekko moving classic remoting to netty4 so that they can also get rid of the CVE's from netty3. Given this and the fact that He-Pin did excellent work with the upgrade in his PR, I don't think the arguments for not merging it are holding much weight [1]: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/22271 On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:48 AM Matthew de Detrich < [email protected]> wrote: > I created a thread on the Flink dev mailing list with a summary of the > situation at > https://lists.apache.org/thread/o774bkox2mvyl8r3xld6kkg5krstgrow > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 4:43 PM Matthew de Detrich < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I am not sure there is any discussion on this, just the apparent fact >> that they happen to be currently using classic remoting >> >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 4:37 PM PJ Fanning <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Can we get a link to the Flink discussion? >>> >>> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 15:25, Matthew de Detrich >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Flink is using pekko now, and a hard reboot may not be ok in some >>> cases, >>> > and because Pekko ships a Netty3 with many CVEs, they may decide to >>> drop >>> > pekko and come out with a dedicated rpc implementation based on Netty4 >>> too. >>> > >>> > Wasn't aware of this (I thought Flink used the new remoting protocol). >>> > I think this is a strong enough reason by itself to upgrade Netty4, but >>> > ofcourse >>> > deprecated classic remoting. >>> > >>> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 3:22 PM kerr <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Netty 4 is much better than Netty 3 and we can schedule tests to run >>> for it >>> > > and make sure the tests all passed for servertimes. >>> > > Otherwise, we will have a CVEs old netty 3 in classpath. >>> > > >>> > > Flink is using pekko now, and a hard reboot may not be ok in some >>> cases, >>> > > and because Pekko ships a Netty3 with many CVEs, they may decide to >>> drop >>> > > pekko and come out with a dedicated rpc implementation based on >>> Netty4 too. >>> > > But after we migrate to Netty 4, they can defer that, I will ask >>> around the >>> > > PMC of Flink at here to let them taking a look. >>> > > >>> > > 何品 >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Matthew de Detrich <[email protected]> >>> 于2023年9月11日周一 >>> > > 19:35写道： >>> > > >>> > > > > that this is a bug, not a feature >>> > > > >>> > > > Also meant to say that this is a feature, not a bug >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 1:34 PM Matthew de Detrich < >>> > > > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > While I know that people have reservations for keeping the >>> current >>> > > > > classical transport, >>> > > > > I just want to relay what I have written at >>> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/pull/643 >>> > > > > i.e. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > - Upgrading the classical transport from Netty 3 to Netty 4 was >>> in >>> > > > context >>> > > > > quite trivial >>> > > > > - Dropping classical transport means that we are technically >>> breaking >>> > > > > semver (we can only do this in Pekko 2.0.x) >>> > > > > - Not upgrading to Netty3 means that we are shipping code with >>> known >>> > > > CVE's >>> > > > > >>> > > > > For these reasons I personally would prefer to merge the PR and >>> just >>> > > get >>> > > > > it done with. Even >>> > > > > with the PR merged, if we change our minds later nothing is >>> stopping us >>> > > > > from dropping it >>> > > > > later (or even reverting the PR when testing is done but I doubt >>> that >>> > > > will >>> > > > > occur). >>> > > > > >>> > > > > There is of course a risk in that updating to Netty 4 might >>> create some >>> > > > > regressions >>> > > > > and hence pekko users would complain but I would then argue that >>> this >>> > > is >>> > > > a >>> > > > > bug, >>> > > > > not a feature because we then get actual feedback as to how many >>> people >>> > > > > are using >>> > > > > the classical transport which allows us to make more >>> comprehensive >>> > > > > decisions in >>> > > > > the future. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 5:56 PM kerr <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > >> And I gathered this result on reddit >>> > > > >> [image: image.png] >>> > > > >> 何品 >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> kerr <[email protected]> 于2023年9月8日周五 23:51写道： >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >>> I just read >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> To switch a full cluster restart is required and any overrides >>> for >>> > > > >>> classic remoting need to be ported to Artery configuration. >>> Artery >>> > > has >>> > > > a >>> > > > >>> completely different protocol, which means that a rolling >>> update is >>> > > not >>> > > > >>> supported. >>> > > > >>> So for Flink use case is that ok? >>> > > > >>> 何品 >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> kerr <[email protected]> 于2023年9月8日周五 17:10写道： >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>>> I did a poll on reddit and get the result of >>> > > > >>>> [image: image.png] >>> > > > >>>> 何品 >>> > > > >>>> >>> > > > >>>> >>> > > > >>>> kerr <[email protected]> 于2023年8月6日周日 00:33写道： >>> > > > >>>> >>> > > > >>>>> > Is it really worth spending any time to support classic >>> remoting? >>> > > > >>>>> Users >>> > > > >>>>> would be better served to switch to Artery. >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> I'm one of the user and the China Scala User group may not >>> talk >>> > > much >>> > > > >>>>> on web but most of us is using the netty transport, even >>> Lightbend >>> > > > say the >>> > > > >>>>> `Artery is the best`. >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> Another online product with large scale nodes(here) is >>> running with >>> > > > >>>>> Akka 2.4.x with the classic transport, and Flink is using the >>> > > > netty.tpc >>> > > > >>>>> transport at least for now too. >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> I think the community can choose when they migrate the nodes >>> to >>> > > > artery >>> > > > >>>>> is essential, especially when otherwise your cluster need a >>> hard >>> > > > reboot. >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> AFAIK, the Artery transport is not wire compatible with the >>> > > > >>>>> classic one. >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> I suggest: >>> > > > >>>>> 1. Start to send PRs to open sources projects like Flink >>> with the >>> > > > help >>> > > > >>>>> for migrating to the artery transport. >>> > > > >>>>> 2. Upgrade to the new version of Netty for bugfix and >>> > > > >>>>> better performance. >>> > > > >>>>> 3. Suggest all the new community move to the Artery >>> transport. >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> Even Akka was removed it in Akka 2.8.x not Akka 2.7.x. >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> Anyway, different company has different requirements, that >>> just my >>> > > 2 >>> > > > >>>>> cents. >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> 何品 >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>> PJ Fanning <[email protected]> 于2023年8月2日周三 17:29写道： >>> > > > >>>>> >>> > > > >>>>>> This will end up in a vote. >>> > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > >>>>>> For me, we shipped 1.0.x. Users who don't want big changes >>> can use >>> > > > >>>>>> that version. We can agree to support 1.0.x with critical >>> fixes. >>> > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > >>>>>> We can now start improving the code for the improvement >>> release >>> > > > >>>>>> (v1.1.x or v2.0.x). Improvements include getting rid of >>> deprecated >>> > > > >>>>>> code and most of us appear to believe that classic remoting >>> is >>> > > long >>> > > > >>>>>> deprecated. >>> > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > >>>>>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 at 09:51, Matthew de Detrich >>> > > > >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > Is it really worth spending any time to support classic >>> > > > remoting? >>> > > > >>>>>> Users >>> > > > >>>>>> > would be better served to switch to Artery. >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > That depends on what you mean by "support". If agreed on, >>> I >>> > > would >>> > > > >>>>>> > propose marking classic remoting as "to be removed" which >>> would >>> > > > >>>>>> > also mean that the code wouldn't be touched (i.e. no >>> feature >>> > > > >>>>>> > changes and no bug fixes unless extremely critical). >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > I am in no way suggesting that we support remoting in a >>> > > > traditional >>> > > > >>>>>> sense >>> > > > >>>>>> > and again the only reason why I am even contemplating >>> this is >>> > > > >>>>>> because >>> > > > >>>>>> > of the CVE's. >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > I don't think it is likely that a significant portion >>> of Akka >>> > > > 2.4 >>> > > > >>>>>> users >>> > > > >>>>>> > would update to Pekko any time soon if the couldn't >>> update to >>> > > Akka >>> > > > >>>>>> 2.5/2.6. >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > I also had this impression but it's already come up a few >>> times >>> > > > that >>> > > > >>>>>> > people still use Akka 2.4.x. They likely haven't bothered >>> > > updating >>> > > > >>>>>> > because they didn't see a need to (quite famously Akka is >>> quite >>> > > > >>>>>> stable >>> > > > >>>>>> > and there are cases of companies using it for years >>> without >>> > > > needing >>> > > > >>>>>> to >>> > > > >>>>>> > update, as stated by Lightbend's CEO) but with the license >>> > > change >>> > > > >>>>>> > it created a catalyst/trigger for some users to consider >>> moving >>> > > to >>> > > > >>>>>> Pekko. >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > On this note I would also be wary in making assumptions >>> on what >>> > > > >>>>>> versions >>> > > > >>>>>> > of Akka people happen to be using. As a corollary in the >>> > > > discussion >>> > > > >>>>>> on >>> > > > >>>>>> > dropping JDK 8, when we suggested that we quite quickly >>> got >>> > > > >>>>>> feedback that >>> > > > >>>>>> > there are people still using JDK 8. And while I know all >>> of the >>> > > > >>>>>> arguments >>> > > > >>>>>> > that you really should not be using JDK 8 can be carried >>> over to >>> > > > >>>>>> Akka. >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > Admittedly it's quite hard to get good feedback on what >>> versions >>> > > > >>>>>> people are >>> > > > >>>>>> > using, just saying we should be a bit more careful in >>> making >>> > > these >>> > > > >>>>>> > assumptions. >>> > > > >>>>>> > After all, people are still using JDK 8 ;) >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 10:19 AM Nicolas Vollmar < >>> > > > [email protected]> >>> > > > >>>>>> wrote: >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > Akka 2.4 has been EoL since end of 2017. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > I don't think it is likely that a significant portion >>> of Akka >>> > > > 2.4 >>> > > > >>>>>> users >>> > > > >>>>>> > > would update to Pekko any time soon if the couldn't >>> update to >>> > > > >>>>>> Akka 2.5/2.6. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > Is it really worth spending any time to support classic >>> > > > remoting? >>> > > > >>>>>> Users >>> > > > >>>>>> > > would be better served to switch to Artery. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 at 10:04, Matthew de Detrich >>> > > > >>>>>> > > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > If you manage to move to Pekko and were still using >>> > > classic >>> > > > >>>>>> remoting, >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > it's likely you are still on Akka 2.4 or 2.5. If you >>> manage >>> > > > the >>> > > > >>>>>> update >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > to Pekko, going to Artery TCP is a small step. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > One of the reasons why I was saying this is that I >>> was under >>> > > > the >>> > > > >>>>>> > > impression >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > that there are a non-trivial amount of users still on >>> Akka >>> > > 2.4 >>> > > > >>>>>> (not sure >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > why >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > this is the case but kerr was telling me this). >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > If people are interested in keeping it around and >>> also opt >>> > > > in >>> > > > >>>>>> to >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > maintaining it (which in the first place means, >>> making the >>> > > > >>>>>> tests for >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > it work *now*), than fine, but otherwise, being able >>> to use >>> > > it >>> > > > >>>>>> on >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > 1.0.x is already a big benefit. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > Since classic remoting is currently using Netty 3 >>> which has >>> > > > >>>>>> CVE's >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > I don't think it's wise to encourage people that still >>> > > happen >>> > > > >>>>>> to be >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > using classic remoting to stay on 1.0.x. If it wasn't >>> for >>> > > > final >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > version of netty 3 having CVE's then I would have no >>> qualms >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > for dropping it in the 1.1.x series (in fact if there >>> was a >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > hypothetical netty 3 without CVE's we would have >>> already >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > updated to it in the 1.0.x series and dropped classic >>> > > remoting >>> > > > >>>>>> in >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > 1.1.x without a heartbeat). >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > I would propose that if we do accept keeping classic >>> > > remoting >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > and updating to Netty 4, we would mark the feature to >>> be >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > dropped in 1.2.x and aside from that Netty 4 upgrade >>> that >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > part of code would be untouched unless there are >>> critical >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > bugs/regressions. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 1:38 PM Johannes Rudolph < >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > [email protected]> >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > wrote: >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > We definitely should remove it for 1.1.x. There's no >>> > > > >>>>>> technical reason >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > to keep it because the newer artery TCP transport >>> just >>> > > > >>>>>> supersedes it. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > As discussed before, the problem with keeping old >>> features >>> > > > >>>>>> around is >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > "death by a thousand cuts". The classic remoting >>> backend >>> > > is >>> > > > >>>>>> the prime >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > example of it because it is basically unmaintained >>> for >>> > > years >>> > > > >>>>>> and >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > there's basically no expert knowledge available >>> about how >>> > > to >>> > > > >>>>>> maintain >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > it or how to fix the existing bugs. Testing remoting >>> > > > backends >>> > > > >>>>>> has >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > shown to be very complicated and often unreliable >>> and >>> > > being >>> > > > >>>>>> able to >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > remove this particular component from the test >>> matrix will >>> > > > be >>> > > > >>>>>> a huge >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > improvement. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:28 PM Matthew de Detrich >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > > I would prefer adding in netty 4 support for the >>> classic >>> > > > >>>>>> transport >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > > mechanism because it gives >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > > people an upgrade path while allowing them to >>> resolve >>> > > the >>> > > > >>>>>> CVE issues. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > If >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > > Pekko 1.1.x didn't >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > > support the classic transport mechanism then it >>> forces >>> > > > >>>>>> Pekko users to >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > be >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > > stuck on 1.0.x >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > > with no easy upgrade path. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > We are not responsible for giving people an easy >>> upgrade >>> > > > path >>> > > > >>>>>> when >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > they were stuck on features like classic remoting >>> which >>> > > has >>> > > > >>>>>> basically >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > been outdated for years. It is very important that, >>> going >>> > > > >>>>>> forward, >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > that we focus our attention on the most important >>> features >>> > > > >>>>>> and make >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > sure to not get stuck in maintaining old parts that >>> we >>> > > > cannot >>> > > > >>>>>> (or >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > don't want to) care for. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > If people are interested in keeping it around and >>> also opt >>> > > > in >>> > > > >>>>>> to >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > maintaining it (which in the first place means, >>> making the >>> > > > >>>>>> tests for >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > it work *now*), than fine, but otherwise, being >>> able to >>> > > use >>> > > > >>>>>> it on >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > 1.0.x is already a big benefit. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > Apart from that the update path is pretty clear: >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > * move to Pekko 1.0.x >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > * move to Arterty TCP >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > * move to Pekko 1.1.x >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > If you manage to move to Pekko and were still using >>> > > classic >>> > > > >>>>>> remoting, >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > it's likely you are still on Akka 2.4 or 2.5. If you >>> > > manage >>> > > > >>>>>> the update >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > to Pekko, going to Artery TCP is a small step. >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > Johannes >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> [email protected] >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >>> > > [email protected] >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > -- >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > Matthew de Detrich >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > *m:* +491603708037 >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] >>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > -- >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > Matthew de Detrich >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > *m:* +491603708037 >>> > > > >>>>>> > >>> > > > >>>>>> > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] >>> > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> > > > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > > >>> > > > > -- >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Matthew de Detrich >>> > > > > >>> > > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen >>> > > > > >>> > > > > *m:* +491603708037 >>> > > > > >>> > > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > >>> > > > Matthew de Detrich >>> > > > >>> > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* >>> > > > >>> > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin >>> > > > >>> > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B >>> > > > >>> > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen >>> > > > >>> > > > *m:* +491603708037 >>> > > > >>> > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> > Matthew de Detrich >>> > >>> > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* >>> > >>> > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin >>> > >>> > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B >>> > >>> > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen >>> > >>> > *m:* +491603708037 >>> > >>> > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> Matthew de Detrich >> >> *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* >> >> Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin >> >> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B >> >> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen >> >> *m:* +491603708037 >> >> *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] >> > > > -- > > Matthew de Detrich > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > *m:* +491603708037 > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] > -- Matthew de Detrich *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen *m:* +491603708037 *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected]
