This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/mat-wg@ripe.net/
[mat-wg] RIPE Atlas / UDM as a replacement for TTM
- Previous message (by thread): [mat-wg] RIPE Atlas / UDM as a replacement for TTM
- Next message (by thread): [mat-wg] RIPE Atlas / UDM as a replacement for TTM
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Jun 19 14:53:45 CEST 2012
Hi, On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 02:44:35PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > Coming back to the anchor boxes: the idea of RIPE Atlas anchors > is to have a bigger probe for deployment inside network infrastructure. > This will complement the standard probes that are typically deployed > nearer to the edge of the network. Atlas Anchors will have a higher > capacity and more bandwidth, so they will be able to do more > measurements than the standard probe. This was part of the idea, which I didn't write down in my initial mail. We're also prepared to shell out some money for the Atlas Anchor boxes - after all, we have budget for two TTM boxes, and this can be re-used here (read between the lines: two Anchor boxes should not require a significantly bigger yearly budget than two TTM boxes :-) ). [..] > We are currently working out the details and a plan for an initial > deployment. In particular we want to avoid the mistakes we made > with TTM, specifically in the hardware/software life-cycle area. > The straw-man currently looks like this: > > - RIPE NCC members only > - hardware bought and owned by the host > - initially a very specific but widely available configuration including OOB access etc. > - hardware capable of supporting additional services, like f.i. a local K-root instance > - hardware installed and network configured by host > - once hardware installed and connected, RIPE NCC takes over operations (like Gert wants ;-) > - no GPS clock, but as accurate NTP as possible > - formal agreement about hosting and operations > - agreed hardware replacement cycle Fine with me :-) I think what is additionally needed as part of the formal agreement is how much bandwidth the host is willing to invest (call it "sponsor" or call it "trade for Atlas credits" :-) ). > Does this answer your questions Gert? Yes, thanks! (And I'll now go and entertain myself with HTTP::Mechanize...) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/mat-wg/attachments/20120619/fb65275e/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [mat-wg] RIPE Atlas / UDM as a replacement for TTM
- Next message (by thread): [mat-wg] RIPE Atlas / UDM as a replacement for TTM
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ mat-wg Archives ]