[atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

> On 10 Nov 2015, at 11:18, Stephan Wolf <s.wolf at wolfsec.ch> wrote:
> 

>     Sure, PROBES as an VM in e.g. overloaded environments are a problem.  So
>     Probes on a VM = can result in some troubles in the existing Atlas model.  To
>     make a "second class" probes I agree that this takes too much efforts.
> 
>     ANCHOR as an VM would really make sense.  What do you think about this ?

I think it simply shifts the problem from source to destination. The
destination must also not be overloaded when responding to packets. Someone
provisioning a UDM, may have no clue how overloaded the underlying hardware
supporting the anchor VM was at the time of the measurement.

In a recent IEPG presentation [1], Emile showed us how latencies over IPv4 and
IPv6 compare using anchoring measurements. In the methodology, it was clearly
stated how the measurements were performed using the 'same' source hardware
(probes) and 'same' destination hardware (anchors). This adds confidence to
the  accuracy of the results. I suspect perhaps we risk losing these RIPE
Atlas benefits with the VM approach.

PS: Anchors can also be used as probes.

[1] http://www.iepg.org/2015-11-01-ietf94/2015-10.iepg-v4v6.emileaben.pdf

Best, Vaibhav

=====================================================
Vaibhav Bajpai

Room 91, Research I
School of Engineering and Sciences
Jacobs University Bremen, Germany

www.vaibhavbajpai.com
=====================================================
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ripe-atlas/attachments/20151110/a0640907/attachment.sig>