- ripe-atlas - mailman.ripe.net

What to do with broken v1 probe?
by Lorenzo Colitti 30 Mar '21

30 Mar '21

Fellow atlas users, After more than 10 years (!) of 99% uptime (see below), my probe v1 appears to have given up the ghost. When connected to power, the lights still come on, but after a few seconds link bounces, and it never sends any packets. Any idea what to do? Should I just apply for a new probe? Are new probes being given out these days? Cheers, Lorenzo ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: RIPE Atlas <no-reply(a)ripe.net> Date: Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 9:59 PM Subject: Congratulations! Your RIPE Atlas probe 333 is 10 years old! To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo(a)colitti.com> Dear Lorenzo Colitti, It's your probe's birthday today !! To celebrate that fact, we are giving you 9869024 credits to use for scheduling your own measurements. In the last 10 years your probe was connected for 99% of the time. Happy measuring and thank you on behalf of everyone at the RIPE NCC and the other RIPE Atlas users. The RIPE Atlas Team

7 6

Re: [atlas] Probe location obfuscation
by Ponikierski, Grzegorz 26 Mar '21

26 Mar '21

I would add to it additional problem that some hosts obfuscate probe location even more. For example you can find probes which in reality are located in US but are marked as CN or probes which are in reality in Wisconsin but are marked in California. Of course these are extreme cases. I guess most hosts just put a pin with probe location just somewhere around where it's locate as long it's in the same city. I don't remember, as a host of 3 probes, to get any precise recommendations how to mark probe location. Personally I just put a pin in city district where probe is locate. Regards, Grzegorz From: "Mccherry, Paul (Student)" <p.mccherry(a)lancaster.ac.uk> Date: Thursday 2021-03-25 at 11:20 To: "ripe-atlas(a)ripe.net" <ripe-atlas(a)ripe.net> Subject: [atlas] Probe location obfuscation Can anyone confirm the geo-location obfuscation of probes as being up to 1km as per https://atlas.ripe.net/about/faq/#are-the-locations-of-probes-made-public<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/atlas.ripe.net/about/faq/*are-the-locati…> I am a Phd student carrying out research on the RIPE atlas platform and an early result seems to indicate 1 probe has an obfuscation of 10km distance but this may be an anomaly or perhaps something not taken into account as yet.

10 13

Unused Probes (was: What to do with broken v1 probe?)
by Sylvain Baya 25 Mar '21

25 Mar '21

{change the subject [0]} Dear all, Hope you are doing well! Le lun. 22 mars 2021 10:35, Estelmann, Christian <c.estelmann(a)gmx.net> a écrit : > Is there a possibility to return no longer used probes? Hi Christian, Thanks for your email brother. ...imho, it's a very useful idea! Within one [1] of our NOG's activities we have included the recovery of unused probes ; but maybe we should have tried it the other side...by asking probe's hosters to send it to an other volunteer or to us, if they become unable to keep it online... __ [1]: FR <https://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/IdeasAndProjects:Projects:AtlasCM> I have one which was homed at a now closed location. Someone else could > give it a new home. > ...i suggest that you write to your ccNOG's mailinglist to find the nearest volunteer who could want to host your protected probe ;-) ...hope this could help. Blessed thursday! __ [0]: <https://lists.ripe.net/pipermail/ripe-atlas/2021-March/004638.html> Shalom --sb. > Greeting, > Christian > > Am 21. März 2021 17:14:57 MEZ schrieb Chriztoffer Hansen <ch(a)ntrv.dk>: > >On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 at 08:18, Lorenzo Colitti via ripe-atlas wrote: > >> After more than 10 years (!) of 99% uptime (see below), my probe v1 > >appears to have given up the ghost. [...] > >Cheers, > >Chriztoffer > > -- -- Best Regards ! __ baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki> Subscribe to Mailing List: <lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)

1 0

Probe location obfuscation
by Mccherry, Paul (Student) 25 Mar '21

25 Mar '21

Can anyone confirm the geo-location obfuscation of probes as being up to 1km as per https://atlas.ripe.net/about/faq/#are-the-locations-of-probes-made-public I am a Phd student carrying out research on the RIPE atlas platform and an early result seems to indicate 1 probe has an obfuscation of 10km distance but this may be an anomaly or perhaps something not taken into account as yet.

1 0

Probe #1000165 showed as down in tab#status
by Jacques Lavignotte 02 Mar '21

02 Mar '21

Dear RIPE NCC crew, Some diag below : # systemctl status atlas mars 02 11:12:43 melusine.eu.org ATLAS[32011]: Do a controller INIT mars 02 11:12:43 melusine.eu.org ATLAS[32011]: Controller init -p 443 atlas(a)ctr-fsn01.atlas.ripe.net INIT mars 02 11:12:43 melusine.eu.org ATLAS[32011]: 255 controller INIT exit with error Probe seems down since scheduled machine reboot this night. Help for fixing welcome, Merci, Jacques -- GnuPg : 156520BBC8F5B1E3 Because privacy matters. « Quand est-ce qu'on mange ? » AD (c) (tm)

5 6

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