Colleagues, you might recall that last month the NCC announced a time-line for some changes to the DNSMON service. This was discussed when the WG met in Warsaw last week. In outline, the old service is based on TTM boxes which are due to be retired at the end of June. These are already beyond their anticipated life-span. The new version of DNSMON uses the Atlas probes and is already operational. It is possible some users of DNSMON may need to change their internal tools and processes when transitioning to the new platform if these depend on the data gathering done by the soon-to-die TTM boxes. If this affects you, please speak up now! I would be grateful if you could express your approval or rejection of the NCC's approach and proposed time-line. Details are at https://labs.ripe.net/Members/romeo_zwart/copy_of_proposed-time-lines-for-ph.... There was little to no response by the WG to the earlier announcement. This makes both your WG Co-chairs and the NCC staff uncomfortable. After the WG co-chairs and NCC's DNSMON team discussed this last week, we agreed to set the end of this month as the final date for comments. Although we can work on the operating principle that silence implies consent, it would be better for all concerned if there were positive messages of support (or even ones of objection) on the list. Please respond. I'd appreciate it if you can comment on the list to indicate that you approve (or disapprove) of the current proposal and/or time-line. thanks in advance
Colleagues, you might recall that last month the NCC announced a time-line for some changes to the DNSMON service. This was discussed when the WG met in Warsaw last week. Just in case people didn;t notice, it was also presented in the DNS-WG: <https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/dns-wg/> jaap
Colleagues, (* hat off *) On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 04:04:34PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
I would be grateful if you could express your approval or rejection of the NCC's approach and proposed time-line. Details are at https://labs.ripe.net/Members/romeo_zwart/copy_of_proposed-time-lines-for-ph....
[...]
I'd appreciate it if you can comment on the list to indicate that you approve (or disapprove) of the current proposal and/or time-line.
I've taken the liberty to copy the timeline here, so we can actually discuss it (could have discussed it) on the list. Labs is a nice idea, but content/external maybe not so.
Old and new DNSMON will be available in parallel until end of June 2014. Configuration updates for existing zones will only be applied to the new DNSMON. Data collection in the old DNSMON service will be terminated by 1 July 2014.
Given the increasingly painful dependency on the old TTM system, and taking into account the warning time given to us customers, this transition deadline appears reasonable to me: "no objection".
Data visualisation of (historic) measurement data provided by the old DNSMON will be available until the end of 2014. Raw data from the old DNSMON measurements will be kept available for a longer period. We are investigating ways to keep the old data available indefinitely.
As I said at the microphone in Warsaw, I think it would be a plus not only to maintain the old data, but also some way to visualize it, so some trends over the years can be looked up (literally, not only dug in the raw data) in comparison. That does not imply running an unmaintained or unmaintainable system indefinitely, neither does it postpone the shutdown date for said system. Getting the viz back in some "reasonable" time would be great. The other point I want to submit "in writing" is that I am not convinced by the reasoning that led to giving up the two hour delay. The fact that "measurements are public" or "anybody could set up their own measurements" neglects the very value added by the (new) visualisation: not only is there an instant feedback channel, but that channel is _the_ well reputed source. In 1980s' words: the revolutionary army not only has a transmitter, but it has direct write access to the 20:00 main news. Doesn't give me sleepless nights, but I question the unilateral decision based on that fatalistic reasoning. Regards, Peter (* still hatless *)
Hello Peter, Please find my reply inline: On 03 Jun 2014, at 08:46, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:
Old and new DNSMON will be available in parallel until end of June 2014. Configuration updates for existing zones will only be applied to the new DNSMON. Data collection in the old DNSMON service will be terminated by 1 July 2014.
Given the increasingly painful dependency on the old TTM system, and taking into account the warning time given to us customers, this transition deadline appears reasonable to me: "no objection”.
Thank you.
Data visualisation of (historic) measurement data provided by the old DNSMON will be available until the end of 2014. Raw data from the old DNSMON measurements will be kept available for a longer period. We are investigating ways to keep the old data available indefinitely.
As I said at the microphone in Warsaw, I think it would be a plus not only to maintain the old data, but also some way to visualize it, so some trends over the years can be looked up (literally, not only dug in the raw data) in comparison. That does not imply running an unmaintained or unmaintainable system indefinitely, neither does it postpone the shutdown date for said system. Getting the viz back in some "reasonable" time would be great.
I fully agree. As suggested in Warsaw, we will keep running the old visualisations until RIPE 69 in London and will present the WG with real usage numbers and a few suggestions on how to move forward for a discussion and decision by the community.
The other point I want to submit "in writing" is that I am not convinced by the reasoning that led to giving up the two hour delay. The fact that "measurements are public" or "anybody could set up their own measurements" neglects the very value added by the (new) visualisation: not only is there an instant feedback channel, but that channel is _the_ well reputed source. In 1980s' words: the revolutionary army not only has a transmitter, but it has direct write access to the 20:00 main news. Doesn't give me sleepless nights, but I question the unilateral decision based on that fatalistic reasoning.
Yes and we are fully committed to implement what is proposed by the WG. Regardless of old TTM decommissioning timeline, we can always introduce a delay in the new DNSMON results. As a matter of fact, Robert has prepared an email explaining possible scenarios to kick off that discussion, we are just waiting to hear from the WG on the status of the timeline in order to be able to commit to implement any possible change to the new DNSMON. All the best, Kaveh. — Kaveh Ranjbar, Chief Information Officer, RIPE NCC
[RIPE NCC *Advisor* hat firmly on. Note this hat no longer bestows responsibility for the services under discussion] On 3.06.14 8:46 , Peter Koch wrote:
... As I said at the microphone in Warsaw, I think it would be a plus not only to maintain the old data, but also some way to visualize it, so some trends over the years can be looked up (literally, not only dug in the raw data) in comparison. That does not imply running an unmaintained or unmaintainable system indefinitely, neither does it postpone the shutdown date for said system. Getting the viz back in some "reasonable" time would be great.
Maintaining the old data available is easy and should be done. Continuing to visualise it will need resources out of a limited pool. It is up to the community to indicate relative priorities for the use of these resources. We use roadmaps http://roadmap.ripe.net/ to help with this. So I suggest to put this under "Requested" on the roadmap. Then we can discuss it in the context of other things we want to see.
The other point I want to submit "in writing" is that I am not convinced by the reasoning that led to giving up the two hour delay. The fact that "measurements are public" or "anybody could set up their own measurements" neglects the very value added by the (new) visualisation: not only is there an instant feedback channel, but that channel is _the_ well reputed source. In 1980s' words: the revolutionary army not only has a transmitter, but it has direct write access to the 20:00 main news. Doesn't give me sleepless nights, but I question the unilateral decision based on that fatalistic reasoning.
From a distance I see four possibilities in order of increasing implementation cost:
1) Do nothing and visualise data in real time. 2) Add a blanket 2h delay to the dnsmon visualisation affecting all users. 3) Add a 2h delay to the dnsmon visualisation to all users that are not logged in as a RIPE NCC member. 4) Add a delay to publication of any RIPE Atlas measurement result in some form. In my humble opinion option 4 is unrealistic because of the complexities involved. If the community wants that it will add a lot of pain to current Atlas users and, more importantly, draw a lot of resources away from adding useful capabilities to RIPE Atlas. Option 2 makes dnsmon much less useful for operational folk to follow a "situation" in real time. I have found this capability invaluable several times in the past to judge the extent and impact of service deteriorations. I would not want to miss it. Therefore the real choice is between 1 and 3. I would be OK with 3 if that makes people like Peter sleep better. We just have to realise that the authorised group is rather large and therefore this is just a deterrent, a fig leaf if you will. If we agree that option 3 is what we want, let us put it on the roadmap too. Daniel [still wearing a hat without responsibility for this service]
I had been meaning to reply to this but (as usual) time ran away with me. I’m fully in support of the approach the NCC is taking to DNSMON and the phasing our of the old system. I strongly support keeping historic data available indefinitley and would prefer if this was both raw data and visualisation if I’m honest, this is because if I do want to look at past performance of something in DNSMON this is usually something I want to do quickly and easily without having to process data. With regard to new zones in DNSMON, I strongly support this, Nominet would like to monitor the GTLD’s it will be serving over the coming months/years. Brett On 19 May 2014, at 16:04, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
Colleagues, you might recall that last month the NCC announced a time-line for some changes to the DNSMON service. This was discussed when the WG met in Warsaw last week.
In outline, the old service is based on TTM boxes which are due to be retired at the end of June. These are already beyond their anticipated life-span. The new version of DNSMON uses the Atlas probes and is already operational. It is possible some users of DNSMON may need to change their internal tools and processes when transitioning to the new platform if these depend on the data gathering done by the soon-to-die TTM boxes. If this affects you, please speak up now!
I would be grateful if you could express your approval or rejection of the NCC's approach and proposed time-line. Details are at https://labs.ripe.net/Members/romeo_zwart/copy_of_proposed-time-lines-for-ph....
There was little to no response by the WG to the earlier announcement. This makes both your WG Co-chairs and the NCC staff uncomfortable. After the WG co-chairs and NCC's DNSMON team discussed this last week, we agreed to set the end of this month as the final date for comments. Although we can work on the operating principle that silence implies consent, it would be better for all concerned if there were positive messages of support (or even ones of objection) on the list. Please respond.
I'd appreciate it if you can comment on the list to indicate that you approve (or disapprove) of the current proposal and/or time-line.
thanks in advance
[wearing the hat of manager of an already decommissioned TTM Box] Jim Reid wrote: [...]
I would be grateful if you could express your approval or rejection of the NCC's approach and proposed time-line.
Full support, and fwiw, our box has already been decommissioned. Also, I do have he srong suspicion, that others have already been taken off-line too, or have not talked to mother ship for a while. So, be done with this asap is the best approach, imho. Regards, Wilfried
participants (7)
-
Brett Carr -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
Jim Reid -
Kaveh Ranjbar -
Peter Koch -
Wilfried Woeber