- ripe-atlas - mailman.ripe.net

Join the RIPE NCC Open House: Internet in Turkey: 24 February 2021, 11:00 UTC
by Vesna Manojlovic 26 Feb '21

26 Feb '21

Dar all, You're invited for an open discussion with the RIPE NCC about the Internet in Turkey! We are hosting a RIPE NCC Open House for our members and other Internet stakeholders in Turkey on Wednesday, 24 February at 11:00 - 12:30 UTC and invite you to join the discussion. The RIPE NCC Open House is a ninety minute remote session where RIPE NCC staff, community members and industry experts can meet up and share insights, feedback and support. https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house This session is focusing on the Turkish Internet community. We will be discussing various topics including: * The state of the Internet in Turkey and across our service region * How RIPE NCC tools and measurements can help operators (RIPE Atlas, RIPEstat, RIPEIPmap, etc.) * Improvements that the RIPE NCC can make to help operators in Turkey * IPv6 deployment * Local community development and the support available from the RIPE NCC Want to join in? Register for the RIPE NCC Open House https://meeting-registration.ripe.net/meeting-pub/registration?0&meetingId=… Looking forward to seeing you online! Regards, Vesna Manojlovic Community Builder RIPE NCC

2 3

New on RIPE Labs: RIPE Atlas Big Data is Back
by Alun Davies 23 Feb '21

23 Feb '21

Dear colleagues, At the beginning of the year, RIPE Atlas users started encountering delays in data retrieval and an overall drop in the responsiveness of the system. With service having gone back to normal earlier this month, we take a look at what caused the problem and what we're doing prevent it from happening again: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/paul_de_weerd/ripe-atlas-big-data-is-back Kind regards, Alun Davies RIPE Labs Editor RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [atlas] [mat-wg] RIPE Atlas testing of reserved IPv4 addresses
by Robert Kisteleki 18 Feb '21

18 Feb '21

Dear All, A little bit of poking since there were no reactions to this question on the MAT mailing list. Before embarking on evaluating what it takes for RIPE Atlas to contribute to this, I'd like to ask for some input from the community; is this something we should spend energy on? More specifically, would it be worthwhile for us to spend time on evaluating the cost of / implementing such measurements in RIPE Atlas? Regards, Robert Kisteleki On 2021-01-26 08:28, Seth David Schoen wrote: > Hi mat-wg, > > I'm Seth, formerly a staff technologist at EFF and one of the > co-developers of Let's Encrypt and Certbot. > > Recently, I've been working with John Gilmore on the IPv4 Unicast > Extensions Project, which aims to make some of the IPv4 address blocks > that were reserved in the 1980s and 1990s (and that continue to be unused, > or nearly so) available for addressing and routing on the Internet. > > This project involves many different kinds of work, including writing > software patches to make various OSes and devices willing to generate > and accept packets to reserved addresses, writing Internet-Drafts to > describe addressing policy changes with IETF, testing devices to see how > they actually treat such packets, talking to various constituencies > about these proposals, and working with the Internet measurement > community to understand how the Internet as a whole treats packets to or > from currently-reserved address ranges, and how that treatment evolves > over time. > > Two prominent examples that are already supported by Linux hosts are the > netblocks 0/8 ("this network") and 240/4 ("experimental"/"future use"). > According to Internet standards created in the 1980s and still in > effect, these address ranges cannot be allocated and should not be > assigned to hosts or used on the public Internet. However, several key > implementations started allowing 240/4 addresses about 11 years ago > during an earlier IETF attempt to open up that netblock, including > Linux, Android, macOS, iOS, and Solaris. In 2019, Linux kernel version > 5.3 allowed ordinary unicast use of 0/8. Today, there are rumors that > various organizations are currently using such reserved addresses as > unofficial RFC 1918-like private address space, without formal policy > coordination with anyone. (There is even some public documentation from > Google suggesting making private use of 240/4.) > > I participated in the Atlas probe deployathon in November and > successfully got a probe up and running. I have also been talking to > a few RIPE people about our interests and managed to confirm that > (regardless of their underlying OS or network treatment) the Atlas > software probes will reject probing any reserved address space, while > the backend infrastructure will refuse to ask probes to connect to it. > > So, I'm here to introduce our project and ask the community's view about > removing these restrictions so that such addresses can actually be > probed and measured. We understand and hope that the majority of such > tests would currently result in errors. Even the errors themselves > could be interesting: for example, we would like to know how often > routing to reserved address ranges fails on a probe host, versus on the > probe host's first-hop router, versus inside of ISP infrastructure. We > would also like to see how this changes over time as a result of OS > software changes that roll out into the field. We would also like to > see whether we can detect unofficial use of particular reserved address > ranges as private address space. Our medium-term goal is to advertise > global routes to portions of these reserved address spaces, and use the > probes to assess how well those routes propagate through the Internet, > and find where blockages occur. Clearly, we can't do this until both > the probe firmware, and the central dispatcher, allow tests to these > addresses. Our long-term goal is to have these addresses treated as > ordinary unicast addresses by all nodes, including Atlas probes, so the > Atlas changes to remove the restrictions would be useful permanent > changes. > >

12 16

RIPE Atlas Measurements packets sent number not always 16
by Debora Marettek 17 Feb '21

17 Feb '21

Dear RIPE NCC, for my ping measurements, I incremented the number of sent packets to 16. Now I noticed that in the measurement with the ID 28779821, the probes didn't always send 16 packets, sometimes, albeit rarely, only 7 or 3. Below you see an extract of the packets_sent data of Probe 52673. Now I wanted to ask what could possibly be the reason for that phenomena. Kind regards, Debora Probe: 52673 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 5, 1, 9, 16, 16, 16, 14, 16, 16, 16, 16, 8, 13, 6, 7, 6, 6, 16, 16, 12, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 10, 11, 10, 7, 6, 16, 4, 16, 16, 16, 16, 4, 7, 15, 6, 9, 12, 11, 7, 8, 11, 6, 5, 13, 13, 13, 5, 10, 16, 16, 7, 7, 9, 7, 7, 7, 9, 16, 16, 11, 4, 7, 16, 7, 2, 8, 16, 4, 6, 8, 16, 7, 8, 6, 5, 8, 8, 9, 8, 7, 4, 3, 10, 1, 2, 11, 6, 16, 8, 12, 6, 11, 10, 11, 8, 12, 12, 12, 11, 8, 16, 6, 5, 5, 9, 10, 6, 10, 7, 9, 10, 9, 11, 8, 8, 11, 7, 12, 7, 11, 9, 13, 2, 10, 12, 10, 7, 9, 16, 13, 5, 4, 7, 8, 6, 5, 7, 6, 7, 9, 9, 9, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 4, 9, 4, 6, 8, 6, 11, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, <https://atlas.ripe.net/measurements/28931367/>

1 0

Re: [atlas] Updating probe ssh pub keys via API PUT/PATCH requests
by Chriztoffer Hansen 15 Feb '21

15 Feb '21

Hi RIPE Atlas, Was reading through the documentation yesterday... Is there a specific reason why it is NOT possible to update probe (ssh) pub keys via authenticated API PUT/PATCH requests? https://beta-docs.atlas.ripe.net/apis/metadata-reference/ -- Best regards, Chriztoffer Hansen

3 3

Measurement Result Broken
by r.sommese＠utwente.nl 10 Feb '21

10 Feb '21

Hi everyone, I am getting trouble getting results for ping measurements. Looking at the web portal and JSON results, they are both empty. Measurement ID: 29049476 I also checked from the account of a colleague, same story. There is something broken in the pipeline? Best, Raffaele Sommese

5 5

Is there a way to de-register a long dead probe?
by Kyriacos Sakkas 09 Feb '21

09 Feb '21

Hi All, Can't seem to find a way to just mark a long dead probe as such. Thanks, Kyriacos

3 6

atlas probe down : ID 35603
by MAYER Hans 08 Feb '21

08 Feb '21

Dear All, Our Atlas probe with ID 35603 is down since about 6 days. It’s a V3 probe. Model: TL-MR3020(UN) Ver: 1.9 ; S/N: 2176197008302. When I realised it this atlas probe was not ping-able. ( due to a power outage ) I followed the instructions https://labs.ripe.net/Members/philip_homburg/troubleshooting-ripe-atlas-pro… with solution 1. Unfortunately it didn’t work. During the time without USB stick the probe was on the network reachable, getting the IP from DHCP. But later on, it wasn’t ping-able. So I tried solution 2. I took a different USB stick as described. After a while the probe is now ping-able. ( 2001:628:21f0:911:c225:e9ff:fea8:6530 , 147.125.100.34 , DNS name: ripencc.iiasa.ac.at<http://ripencc.iiasa.ac.at> ) But when I go to https://atlas.ripe.net/probes/35603/ I see it is offline. The web page says „no flash drive“ and „trying to connect“. What else can I do ? It seems, that the TP-Link device itself isn’t broken. Shall I try with a different USB stick. (a third one) I took a 64MB USB stick. Was this maybe too big ? I saw the original stick had only 1 MB. The documentation says it should have at least 4GB. Any ideas ? Any feedback is welcome. Kind regards Hans -- Ing. Dipl.-Ing. Hans Mayer Systems Analyst Network Unix Security Team (NUST) Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Schlossplatz 1 A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria Phone: +43 2236 807 Ext 215 Mobile: +43 676 83 807 215 Web: http://www.iiasa.ac.at E-Mail: hans.mayer(a)iiasa.at<mailto:hans.mayer@iiasa.at> Note: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.

2 6

querying the config
by Randy Bush 04 Feb '21

04 Feb '21

howdy so i wanted info about a probe's config, specifically what dns resolver(s) it is using. i could not figure out how to do this. assuming it was a lack of clueons, i asked a friend with far deeper atlas fu. they said such queries are not available. really? [ yes we have bright ideas on how to discover this indirectly by mining past data ] but really? randy

5 6

Measuring reachability query
by Hank Nussbacher 27 Jan '21

27 Jan '21

2 1