[tt-tf] TTM futures - final proposal

Hi Simon,

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

On 27/10/2007 14:23, Simon Leinen wrote:
> Sorry for the late followup.
> 
> Mark Dranse writes:
>> 3. To further expand the network in the areas where support and
>> technical expertise are limited (e.g. small/residential customers),
>> a probe itself should be as lightweight as possible (no GPS,
>> embedded systems). The CBM proposal fits well in this category. This
>> setup doesn't allow one-way measurements, although an aggregated
>> view from a cluster of such lightweight probes can enhance the TTM
>> and add-on services.
> 
> "This setup doesn't allow one-way measurements" seems too strong.
> Synchronized clocks are needed for precise one-way delay measurements,
> but you could still perform precise (and useful) one-way loss and
> delay variation measurements.


By way of clarity, what is meant here is that the CBM nodes will not
ever be included in the full global TTM mesh to participate in the very
precise GPS synchronised one-way measurements as we currently know them.

Of course, CBM nodes can do simpler and less precise one way
measurements between themselves and their parent TTM node.

The original CBM proposal can be found here by way of reference:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/tt-wg/2005/pdf00001.pdf

Kind regards

Mark

-- 
Mark Dranse
RIPE NCC