- ripe-atlas - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [atlas] IPv6 Doesn't Work
by ripe＠brite.cz 19 Jan '19

19 Jan '19

No filtering here. Furthermore it seems the Atlas Probe is not able to get anywhere out via IPv6 too. I'm wondering is the Gateway setting correct? [Gateway(s) fe80::1] --------------------------------- Peter Eckel lists at eckel-edv.de Sat Jan 19 11:26:33 CET 2019 Hi Jiri, for me it looks like you're not reachable indeed: > pete at charon.net.hindenburgring.com> traceroute inet6 2a00:1028:8d1c:90da:220:4aff:fee0:2026 > traceroute6 to 2a00:1028:8d1c:90da:220:4aff:fee0:2026 (2a00:1028:8d1c:90da:220:4aff:fee0:2026) from <xxx>, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets > [...] > 3 2a00:19e0:ffff:fffc::1 (2a00:19e0:ffff:fffc::1) 23.579 ms 23.308 ms 23.495 ms > 4 2a00:19e0:ffff:ffff::3 (2a00:19e0:ffff:ffff::3) 29.521 ms 29.738 ms 29.822 ms > 5 ae0-401.fra10.core-backbone.com (2a01:4a0:1338:2::1) 30.063 ms 29.215 ms 36.436 ms > 6 ae2-2001.nbg30.core-backbone.com (2a01:4a0:0:2001::1) 32.540 ms 31.789 ms 51.790 ms > 7 ae1-2053.prg10.core-backbone.com (2a01:4a0:0:2053::22) 37.175 ms 36.355 ms 35.141 ms > 8 nix4-ipv6.pater.iol.cz (2001:7f8:14::29:1) 39.033 ms 36.891 ms 37.997 ms > 9 dynamic-2a00-1028-0001-0160-0000-0000-0000-0002.ipv6.broadband.iol.cz (2a00:1028:1:160::2) 38.403 ms 41.560 ms 37.239 ms > 10 dynamic-2a00-1028-0001-02a5-0000-0000-0000-0002.ipv6.broadband.iol.cz (2a00:1028:1:2a5::2) 37.214 ms 50.273 ms 51.604 ms > 11 * * * > 12 dynamic-2a00-1028-8d1c-90d8-0000-0000-0000-0001.ipv6.broadband.iol.cz (2a00:1028:8d1c:90d8::1) 44.291 ms 58.819 ms 49.810 ms > 13 * * * > 14 * * * > 15 * * * > 16 * * * > 17 * * * > 18 * * * > 19 * * * > [...] Are you by any chance filtering ICMPv6 on your ingress router? Regards, Peter.

1 0

IPv6 Doesn't Work
by ripe＠brite.cz 19 Jan '19

19 Jan '19

Hi, I have Probe #2413 here, it shows label " IPv6 Doesn't Work". It has IPv6 address assigned: IPv6 Current Configuration Addresses 2a00:1028:8d1c:90da:220:4aff:fee0:2026/64 ASN 5610 Gateway(s) fe80::1 I'm not sure what's the issue. My provider provides IPv6, but I personally don't use IPv6 on any of my devices. I read https://atlas.ripe.net/about/faq/#i-have-an-ipv6-only-network-will-the-prob… but in this case it is not IPv6 only. I tried to give it static config but I couldn't find out what config to use. Any idea? Thanks Jiri

2 1

credit differences between probes?
by Christopher Morrow 18 Jan '19

18 Jan '19

howdy! (long time listener, first time caller...) I have some probes deployed, and for some period of time I was accruing credits at about the same rate per day per probe. Recently (last week or so?) I noticed that I now accrue at one rate for 1 device and a different rate for 2 other devices. The devices have been up for at least the last 24hrs: morrowc-fios 4 days, 5 hours 21.6k morrowc-comcast 1 week, 2 days 65.7k Atlas@deteque-IAD 3 weeks 21.6k (unsure why the fios one bobbled...but it's still be up for ~4days) Is this expected? or maybe I'm just in some wonky space with the accruals anyway?

3 6

New on RIPE Labs: Redesigning the RIPE Atlas Measurement Details Page
by Alun Davies 17 Jan '19

17 Jan '19

Dear colleagues, Today we published an article on some of the changes we’ve made to the RIPE Atlas measurement details page. The redesign follows work we’ve been doing to move over to a new back-end storage solution for RIPE Atlas measurement metadata. Click the link to find out more: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/jasper_den_hertog/new-design-and-functionalit… <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/jasper_den_hertog/new-design-and-functionalit…> Kind regards, Alun Davies RIPE NCC

1 0

Data in the Internet Maps
by Davey Song(宋林健) 21 Dec '18

21 Dec '18

Hi Atlas people, <I did not receive mails from this list months ago. I hope it still works.> I’m writing to ask about the Data repo in the intnernet maps. For example I would like to study the DNS root RTT statistics in this page : https://atlas.ripe.net/results/maps/rtt-fixed/ Where and How should I get the access to this data. Best regards, Davey

3 6

testing DNS flag day compatibility
by Petr Špaček 19 Dec '18

19 Dec '18

Hello everyone, this is follow-up from RIPE 77 hallway discussion, sorry for delay. We are looking for ways to test DNS flag day [1] compatibility from client networks. Objective is to test hypothesis that most breakage happens on authoritative side of DNS. In other words, we would like to test that DNS recursive infrastructure and client networks do not significantly influence compatibility. That would help to provide precise information for network operators who will have to deal with DNS flag day. Problem here is that RIPE Atlas does not allow to send all types of queries [2] required for full test. It was discussed at length that Atlas team has its reasons for not sending random blobs to random IP addresses, which is understood. Question here is: Can we find a middle ground to allow greater variety of valid DNS queries without forcing Atlas team to reimplement everything? My notes from meeting mention two approaches for further dicussion: a) User provides command line arguments for well-known tool dig, which gets executed in controlled environment ("as part of RIPE Atlas infrastructure") and generates query packet/blob. This blob generated by dig is then used as payload so use cannot ship anything but syntactically valid DNS packet. b) User provides blob for payload, which is then analyzed by packet parser of choice (BIND/ldns/Knot DNS/all of them). The payload can be sent out only if packet parsers do not find out any problem/blob is syntactically valid. These two approaches can also be combined to guard again quirks in either component. c) <propose your own here> What do you think? Is there a way to allow greater flexibility to Atlas DNS? [1] https://dnsflagday.net/ [2] https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/DNS-Compliance-Testing/blob/master/genr… -- Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC

2 4

Long response times using one-off measurements with old probes
by Moritz Muller 17 Dec '18

17 Dec '18

Hi, I would like to point you to a discussion on the DNS-OARC mailing list: https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2018-December/018196.ht… One of the operators at .ca noticed that old probes report way higher response times using DNS CHAOS queries (300% or more) (see also [3]). After some digging, we came to the conclusion that this has to do with the fact that he is carrying out “one-off” measurements. When carrying out the same query for a longer time, we cannot observe this delay. The issues seems to be that one-off measurements are scheduled at probes using a different library than measurements that run for a longer period (“eooqd” instead of “eperd”). Some small additional delays have been documented before on the RIPE Atlas website and in research papers [1, 2], but the big delay with one off measurements was new to me. Also to others? Is our assumption correct that the scheduler is the culprit? Moritz [1] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2805789.2805796 [2] https://clarinet.u-strasbg.fr/~pelsser/publications/Holterbach-ripe-atlas-s… [3] https://atlas.ripe.net/measurements/18086197/#!probes

2 3

API is sluggish
by Ponikierski, Grzegorz 11 Dec '18

11 Dec '18

Hi all! Did you notice that for last few days API is super slow to response. It takes something like few minutes to get reply. Do you observe any issue with Atlas infrastructure? What details I should provide to help with troubleshoot? Regards, Grzegorz

2 3

DNS Measurement Grouping by NSID
by Klaus Darilion 30 Nov '18

30 Nov '18

Hi! IIRC, the map of the DNS measurement allowed to group the dataset by NSID. Was this feature removed? OR is it now somewhere else? I.e.: https://atlas.ripe.net/measurements/17175212/?filter=&diversity-picker=3&ag… Thanks Klaus

4 6

Minor change to Atlas anchor DNS resolver configuration
by Anand Buddhdev 28 Nov '18

28 Nov '18

Dear colleagues, Each RIPE Atlas anchor runs a DNS resolver. This resolver is configured as the primary resolver for the anchor, with the following directive at the top of the resolver configuration (/etc/resolv.conf): nameserver 127.0.0.1 For ease of configuration management, we are changing this directive to: nameserver ::1 This change will not affect DNS resolution on the anchors in any way. However, any measurement that does DNS lookups using the anchor's primary resolver will contain "::1" instead of "127.0.0.1" in "src_addr" field of results. If you're using any code to parse such results, and specifically looking for "127.0.0.1", you'll need to adjust your code to also look for "::1". Regards, Anand Buddhdev RIPE NCC

1 0