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] Proposal: Measure well-known CDNs,[CDN-HTTP]
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Proposal: Measure well-known CDNs,[CDN-HTTP]
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Proposal: Measure well-known CDNs,[CDN-HTTP]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Stephane Bortzmeyer
bortzmeyer at nic.fr
Fri Dec 16 16:28:07 CET 2022
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 03:02:46PM +0100, Robert Kisteleki <robert at ripe.net> wrote a message of 15 lines which said: > We recently published a RIPE Labs article containing a few proposals: > https://labs.ripe.net/author/kistel/five-proposals-for-a-better-ripe-atlas/. > We'd like to encourage you to express your comments about this proposal (if > you'd like to share them) here. (In the Cons) "Possible arguments about which provider to include in this set and which to refuse." There is a larger problem here, a more strategic one: such a feature would contribute to the centralisation of the Internet, which is already too important. Tagging some targets are "important" and "worthy of measurements" would mean that we consider some HTTP servers to be more useful than others. That would be a bad message from RIPE.
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] Proposal: Measure well-known CDNs,[CDN-HTTP]
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] Proposal: Measure well-known CDNs,[CDN-HTTP]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]