Small remark: Regarding concern that many probes are behind NAT and outcome of Spoofing check will not be so effective. In future perspective: in IPv6 world none or maybe only few probes should stay behind NAT so, in case of IPv6 this spoofing check should be very effective. Regards. /Alex Saroyan On 09/16/2013 04:06 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 15.09.2013, at 4:57 , Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
i am not against this in principle. but i want to see a hypothesis and an experimental design which can produce something real. I find myself agreeing with Randy. I also would like to hear an argument about what specific information and knowledge this experiment will generate over and above what is already known and measured by http://spoofer.cmand.org/ and similar experiments as well as why this experiment cannot be achieved without using RIPE Atlas. Once we have such a proposal we can have a discussion whether it is worth both the effort and the risk to RIPE Atlas.
If we are going in the direction of naming and shaming I would want to hear from the RIPE community beyond the MAT WG that this is what they want; best venue for this probably is http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/ripe-mailing-lists/ncc-services-wg . I do not want the RIPE NCC to be criticised for spending effort here and for naming and shaming. In this discussion I will bring up http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-379 and my assessment of why it was not as successful as we anticipated and caution against expecting too much from additional efforts in this area.
Once we have community consensus about these things and if it is to go ahead, we need to discuss relative priorities in the MAT WG, using http://roadmap.ripe.net/ripe-atlas/ .
Finally: The community discussion should happen on this closed list but on http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/mat .
Daniel