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/ripe-atlas@ripe.net/
[atlas] Selecting only anchors for UDM
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Selecting only anchors for UDM
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Selecting only anchors for UDM
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Karrenberg
daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Wed Jun 11 16:09:02 CEST 2014
On 11.06.14 15:56 , Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 03:44:48PM +0200, > Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote > a message of 11 lines which said: > >> Hence IPV6WORKS. ;-) > > Set how? Pinging a few Anchors and checking that at least N % answers? That is a very open question and we'd like input about it. My *personal* straw-man for IPV6WORKS would be "At least 3 IPv6 targets pinged successfully in the past 24 hours". IPv6 targets should be high-availability built-in measurement targets such as anchors and root name servers. The number and time interval can be discussed. The problem with this is that one wants to select probes that have a structural local problem while keeping probes that have intermittent and less local problems. In other words: if we exclude too many non-working probes we cannot easily measure real operational problems. Hence I proposed HASIPV6 which could mean that a non-link-local IPv6 address is configured or something similar. The nice thing about tags is that we can have as many we consider useful ... Daniel
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Selecting only anchors for UDM
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Selecting only anchors for UDM
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]