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 ]
Robert Kisteleki
robert at ripe.net
Wed Jun 11 23:07:51 CEST 2014
On 2014.06.11. 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? Daniel is exposing some info about stuff that we're actually working on, but we did not announce it yet :-) but yes, the basic idea is that we'll look at how the probe performed in the last period, and if it had enough success, we'll consider it capable of doing ipv4/ipv4/dns/whatever. Then use this knowledge in the measurement scheduler when users want to use those features. That's a departure from "the probe claims that it can do X so we'll go with that" -- which is the main theme behind Stephane's article. We may even have a switch that controls "use probes that think they can do v6 but it doesn't really work" to check the corner cases. If there's a need for such thing. (Is that operationally useful? Or research only?) Cheers, Robert
- 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 ]