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] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Tue Nov 10 13:20:39 CET 2015
On 2015-11-10 11:18, Stephan Wolf wrote:
> ANCHOR as an VM would really make sense.
> What do you think about this ?
I think this would really be a BAD idea! The anchors are meant to be more
capable and more stable than the candy probes. Messing around with that
concept should not be done, imho.
> Just my 2 cents .-)
...same here :-)
Wilfried
PS: I myself do see the beauty of the idea to virtualize the (candy-)probes,
but I have - already a while ago - been convinced that the data generated
by them should *not* be mixed in with the data from those under full NCC
control. And whether those VM probes should even be catalogued by the NCC
is another open question.
> Cheers,
> Stephan
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]