On 17.12.22 03:00, Massimo Candela wrote:
On 17/12/2022 00:19, Barry Raveendran Greene wrote:
On Dec 16, 2022, at 23:29, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> wrote:
There is a larger problem here, a more strategic one: such a feature would contribute to the centralisation of the Internet, which is already too important. Tagging some targets are "important" and "worthy of measurements" would mean that we consider some HTTP servers to be more useful than others. That would be a bad message from RIPE.
We’ve come full circle - we started with centralized PTTs - moved to a decentralized ASN/Paul Baran model - now Re-centralized based on marketing domination.
+1 with Stephane’s observation. The selection of who to measure is a statement.
+1
Also, while the data would be useful, I don't think the role of the ripe ncc is to grade commercial services. Let other companies or individual researchers do that.
On the one hand i agree with Stephane, but on the other hand, it is a fact that there are a few large providers/CDNs who have a significant share... of specific webservices. I don't like that either, but i can't deny it either. I agree, that manually selecting those providers/CDNs for such a measurement could be understood as a statement. But maybe there's another way, to select which one of those providers/CDNs to measure? Instead of manually selecting them, there could be some sort of "threshold" which a provider/CDN has to reach, to be part of this kind of measurement. This way, it wouldn't be a statement, but a static delimitation. I am unsure what kind of threshold it could be, and how to detect it. It should probably be some sort of technical value. BR, Simon