Hello! Maybe we could fix import issues with some vendor?
We have really huge and good shop of network hardware here: http://shop.nag.ru If they could offer Soekris platform could be fine. On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenb...@ripe.net> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- Sincerely yours, Pavel Odintsov
