Hello All, I think we can separate out two issues here: 1. I believe we should keep incentivising (for the lack of a better word) "benevolent" probe hosts - ie. if someone would like to host a probe, either hw or sw, then they should be able to do so and enjoy the benefits. Having said this, with the hw probe distribution we prioritise yet-uncovered networks. This is much harder to do with sw probes... 2. We should dis-incentivise "farming", if that happens. The issue is that we can only recognise this once it happens. Coming up with hard policies on how to regulate this in advance is not easy, but one can come up with some guidelines on how to recognise such cases and what to do with them when they are found. There's of course a benefit in having multiple probes in a network, and presumably the bigger said network is the more probes it could have. Surely constructs like CGNATs make all kinds of corner cases... I'm very happy to see proposals on how to improve the built-in probe selection process. We'll evaluate these and of course implement ones that make sense within the system. At the end of the day there will always be cases that can only be done "manually", ie. the user selecting particular probes by whatever criteria they want to use. Cheers, Robert On 2022-03-31 20:43, Andreas Härpfer wrote:
Of course I am wildly guessing here, but the 15 probes in Hostinger Sao Paulo actually look a bit fishy to me. Consecutive probe numbers, all created at roughly the same time, all in the same v4 /24 and v6 /64. To me this looks like an "Atlas credit mining farm" … so more a mis-use than an overuse.
The 4 probes in Johannesburg are different. Same ASN but at least different /24s and different ages, so likely also different owners.
Just my 2¢
Cheers -Andi