[tt-tf] TTM futures - new draft

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your kind comments. I'll attempt to address each of your
points in turn.

On 19/04/2007 12:56, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> Vision
>> ~~~~~~
>>
>> Our goal is to expand and maintain the TTM network, increasing the value
>> of the service to the community at large and to the owners of the
>> probes. This will be achieved by making improvements in the following
>> areas:
>> -    Enhancing the measurement architecture
>> -    Enhancing the TTM network architecture
>> -    Improving alarms and reporting
>> -    Improving the business model
> 
> Are there any notions of time-scales along with these proposals?

At present, this is just a draft. We need consensus from the community,
which I hope will come from these on-list discussions, and from the WG
meeting at Tallinn. After that, we can take the plan to the Board for
executive approval. Once approved, we will begin the real work on this,
which will lead to a proper project plan with milestones and timescales.

That's the political answer. Back in the real world, I'd like it if most
of this could be done over the coming year. But please don't take that
as a firm commitment.

>> TTM network infrastructure
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 1. For the services that the TTM provides, it is essential that there
>> are enough active probes at interesting locations. At present, we are
>> relatively limited by the availability, and geography,of those willing
>> to sponsor probes, and as a result, some rather dense and unhelpful
>> clustering has occurred. A possible solution to mitigate this problem is
>> to install a number of probes at important locations for free. The NCC
>> will fund the hardware and service contract, while the host will support
>> the probe with power, connectivity and remote-hands. Rough criteria for
>> hosting a box:
>>
>> - Major AS or IX
>> - Only one free box per AS – if a site wants more, they have to pay
>> - Commitment from the site to operate the box for a minimum 3 year period
>> - Selection will be a “beauty contest”, and at the discretion of the NCC
> 
> This is vital and will, hopefully, attract a decent amount of
> respondents.

I hope so too. Does anyone else have any comments regarding this?

>> 2. However this alone will not ensure sustained growth of the network.
>> This needs to be addressed by increasing the number of sponsored probes
>> and ensuring that those probes are well maintained and upgraded when
>> necessary. Therefore It is important to make the TTM services attractive
>> to sponsors of the TTM probes to increase stability and steady growth of
>> the network. Several incentives can be provided:
>>
>> - Allow the sponsor to define their own measurement mesh and specific
>> routine measurements (level of detail and frequency). Management of
>> gathered data will be the responsibility of the sponsor.
>> - Support the sponsor in creating dynamic meshes to monitor their own
>> applications and services, providing a global picture of availability.
> 
> While I think that it will be a pity (as I have voiced previously)
> to lose the fully-meshed nature of the TTM network, I would not
> for one moment suggest that this step is not necessary, and it is
> one that will hopefully present a clearer business case for TTM.

By way of clarity, we're not proposing losing the full mesh. This is a
fundamental and integral element of the architecture, and fully meshed
measurements will continue for the foreseeable future (the only argument
I can see for them stopping is if the sheer volume of measurements
becomes too high as a result of enormous network growth - a nice problem
to have at some point in the future!)

What is being proposed is the addition of support for locally customised
meshes so that probe sponsors can carry out measurements of specific
local interest to them. It's very much an augmentation, not a
replacement of current functionality.

>> TTM Measurements
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> 1. Near real-time measurement of application services
>> The TTM network will continue to act as a measurement platform for
>> critical Internet public service and infrastracture applications (e.g.
>> root and ccTLD DNS monitoring and of multicast performance). These
>> independent tests are of benefit to the service administrators, the end
>> users, and to the hosts of TTM probes. We will improve this service by
> 
> The near real-time measurements are of great importance to us in
> HEAnet and I am very pleased to see they are not in danger.
> 
>> Reporting
>> ~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> We consider the current reports to be complex and overwhelming. We will
>> simplify the presentation of results to include fewer pre-generated
>> plots, and shift our focus to the identification of trends and changes
>> in gathered data. We will continue to support tools to generate plots on
>> demand, and raw data will continue to be available for analysis. DQM
>> will be used to verify data sanity. In addition to this, we are
>> investigating ways to merge TTM data with that from other services -
>> such as RIS - combining data from these powerful platforms to display
>> broader and more representative pictures of Internet behaviour in near
>> real-time.
> 
> This really does seem to be the best of all possible worlds.
> 
>> Admin and pricing model
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> As a result of feedback from existing TTM hosts, we intend to move to a
>> single up front payment. This payment will cover hardware, setup, and
>> three years of service fees. After three years, the host may
>> re-subscribe, or opt to stop participating.
> 
> This makes a lot of sense.  It's possible that this is a question for
> the infrastructure section, but I would very much like to hear more
> detail (although perhaps not appropriate to this discussion) on the
> hardware plans for the full TTM boxes.  Some of the hardware out there
> is getting old at this point and might it be useful to have an upgrade
> path available for those who have been part of the project for some
> time?  I'm not really asking on behalf of HEAnet here, more wondering
> if continued participation by commercial entities could be ensured
> by sweetening such a deal?

You raise an interesting and valid point. Hopefully I'll have an answer
to this by the time we all meet in Tallinn.

> Once again, thanks for all the work that obviously went into this
> proposal.

And thank you for your comments and queries. I'm interested in seeing
some more traffic on this topic prior to RIPE54, so I encourage anyone
else who reads these emails to share their thoughts. If you're part of
the silent majority, please try to share just a few comments with us -
be they in support, or (perhaps more importantly) otherwise.

Mark

-- 
Mark Dranse                             RIPE Network Coordination Center
Information Services Manager            Singel 258 Amsterdam NL
http://www.ripe.net                     +31 20 535 4444