Pavel, it appears that my information is out-dated. You are right one needs to import them these days. I realise that this is awkward and expensive, but it appears to be possible.
Maybe rather than wasting time on VMs we should consider a new type of anchor which is more readily available everywhere than the Soekris. Personally I would go in the direction of Ubiquity Edge Routers or Mikrotik routers which I know for sure are available in Russia and also widely available around the world. Do you have suggestions? Daniel On 10.11.15 10:49 , Pavel Odintsov wrote: > Hello! > > Awesome! Could you share where we could bought it? I will share this > information with local community. > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Daniel Karrenberg > <daniel.karrenb...@ripe.net> wrote: >> At this time are 485 connected probes and two connected anchors in >> Russia. As far as I know Soekris boxes can be bought in Russia. >> >> Daniel >> >> On 10.11.15 10:07 , Pavel Odintsov wrote: >>> Hello, Community! >>> >>> I like idea about VM based Anchor's. >>> >>> For example in Russia we have so much companies who really want to >>> host RIPE Anchor hosting but it's really hard due to so much >>> bureaucracy for computer hardware import. It's really sophisticated >>> and long task. >>> >>> VM based Anchors could help in this case. But they should be >>> designated as "second-rate monitoring". So somebody who interested in >>> monitoring over non-so-reliable-vm's could use they. Actually, this >>> VM's should "mine" less points than full-size-Anchor. >>> >>> We could select some unified way to run VM's. I prefer VmWare because it's: >>> 1) Free >>> 2) Simple to deploy >>> 3) Mature >>> 4) Very simple VM deploy >>> >>> Xen, KVM are pretty too but they are based on non standard linux >>> distributions and it could be a configuration issue. OpenVZ/Docker and >>> LXC should be avoided because (actually I have so much experience with >>> they and I'm not a technology hater) they are not offer dedicated >>> service and not isolated perfectly from each other processes. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Gert Doering <g...@space.net> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:33:01AM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>>> >From my personal, informal assessment I advise against supporting VMs. I >>>>> recommend a thorough assessment of the data quality, the costs and the >>>>> effects on RIPE Atlas as a whole before diving into soloutioneering. >>>> >>>> From experience running a recursive DNS on a VM platform, I'd also speak >>>> against supporting VMs. Unpredictable load elsewhere on the same host >>>> can (and does) lead to UDP/ICMP packet loss, which the "Atlas VM" won't >>>> be able to differenciate from "something on the path is broken/lossy". >>>> >>>> Gert Doering >>>> -- NetMaster >>>> -- >>>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >>>> >>>> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >>>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >>>> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >>>> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >>> >>> >>> > > >
