Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

Sent from my iPad

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

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

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

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

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

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

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

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

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

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 wrote: > Pavel, > > it

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

Sure, PROBES as an VM in e.g. overloaded environments are a problem. So Probes on a VM = can result in some troubles in the existing Atlas model. To make a "second class" probes I agree that this takes too much efforts. ANCHOR as an VM would really make sense. What do you think about this ?

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

I understand the temptation of "easy deployment". The con-s also have been outlined ad nauseam. So let me repeat this only once: We should all assess this thoroughly before diving into it. What quality of data we expect from VMs? What is the real cost of *supporting* VMs? The main costs are not

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

reply inline > On 10 Nov 2015, at 12:50, Philip Homburg wrote: > > On 2015/11/10 13:36 , Colin Johnston wrote: >> After having lived and still work in a Solaris physical metal land, I took >> onboard the virtual machine world for a webservice/emailservice. >> The

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

Hi, On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:18:37AM +0100, Stephan Wolf wrote: > ANCHOR as an VM would really make sense. > What do you think about this ? Even less so than a probe - as the anchor needs to provide reliable and robust measurements *and* responses to probes. Gert Doering -- NetMaster

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

On 2015-11-10 11:18, Stephan Wolf wrote: > ANCHOR as an VM would really make sense. > What do you think about this ? I think this would really be a BAD idea! The anchors are meant to be more capable and more stable than the candy probes. Messing around with that concept should not be done,

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

> On 10 Nov 2015, at 12:20, Wilfried Woeber wrote: > > > On 2015-11-10 11:18, Stephan Wolf wrote: > >> ANCHOR as an VM would really make sense. >> What do you think about this ? > > I think this would really be a BAD idea! The anchors are meant to be more > capable

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

Hi, On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 01:50:41PM +0100, Philip Homburg wrote: > For ordinary probes, we have absolutely no control over the network. > Probe hosts don't have to guarantee anything. So I wonder if blackbox > testing would even allow distinguishing between an overloaded VM and a > probe on a

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

On 2015/11/10 14:01 , Colin Johnston wrote: >> One way of looking at it, are the people who want a VM willing to >> guarantee that the VM performs better than the current Soekris boxes we >> use for anchors? And is there is way of monitoring that they live up to >> their promises. >> > A well

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

On 10/11/2015 13:01, Colin Johnston wrote: > A well managed vm this is the key point. the ripe atlas people have no control over the hypervisor management, which is important from a measurement point of view. Nick

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2015/11/10 14:05 , Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 01:50:41PM +0100, Philip Homburg wrote: >> For ordinary probes, we have absolutely no control over the >> network. Probe hosts don't have to guarantee anything. So I >>

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

So, is this mean that we can build our soekris hardware by our self? (we don't have to import any soekris from outside). If this true, then it will be an opportunity for any network that want to host an anchor but limited by import issues. On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Pavel Odintsov

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

Hello, Robert! I completely agree with you. I'm thinking from developer point of view. I want to hack evtraceroute/evping. But I could not compile they on my Linux box. So I'm looking for some way to build / check RIPE Atlas environment on my machine. So I definitely could install it manually

Re: [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

Hello, here I would generate a OVM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Virtualization_Format so it is in first stage hypervizor independent. however for sure, the NIC needs to be supported who is emulated. E.g. E1000 under VMware is ok, and not their proprietary VMXnet. So I would simply

[atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)

Dear All, At the risk of assigning more work to myself than I anticipate: there's an action item on me to come up with some thoughts and questions to the community about the VM probes. For example: what virtualisation technology would people prefer (as we cannot support all of them)? How would we