We're finding it harder and harder to support the 1G nic interface on the anchors. We'd love to add more but would need a 10g port at minimum (25G or 40G would also work). Are there any plans to update them for networks that can't easily support a 1G nic? Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean
Hi Bryan, On 17/04/13 19:40 , Bryan Socha wrote:
We're finding it harder and harder to support the 1G nic interface on the anchors. We'd love to add more but would need a 10g port at minimum (25G or 40G would also work).
Are there any plans to update them for networks that can't easily support a 1G nic?
Interesting question. :) I can see the logic of this from the perspective of some operators. However, we are not considering adding 10GE or higher port speeds to the RIPE Atlas anchors. The reasons for this are manyfold: - Though this would possibly be technically feasible with some Soekris models that have PCI Express capabilities, there would be a non-trivial and as yet undefined amount of engineering work involved for us to make this an operationally supported option. - By expanding hardware support options we increase the burden on our limited-resourced operational team. - The current GE port speed already is a significant overkill for a measurement network that is not designed to do capacity/throughput tests. As a side note: we also have a strong requirement from many of our anchor hosts in other regions of the world to keep the actual bandwidth requirements for the anchors in the order of kilobits per second or less. - Our assessment is that most of our anchor hosts (current and prospective) will be able to support 1G somewhere in their networks for at least the next 3-5 years. I hope this clarifies our reasoning and addresses your question. Kind regards, Romeo
Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean
vm virtual image would be great though so that underlying network would be transparent to the application. Colin
On 20 Apr 2017, at 15:10, Romeo Zwart <romeo.zwart@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Bryan,
On 17/04/13 19:40 , Bryan Socha wrote:
We're finding it harder and harder to support the 1G nic interface on the anchors. We'd love to add more but would need a 10g port at minimum (25G or 40G would also work).
Are there any plans to update them for networks that can't easily support a 1G nic?
Interesting question. :) I can see the logic of this from the perspective of some operators. However, we are not considering adding 10GE or higher port speeds to the RIPE Atlas anchors. The reasons for this are manyfold:
- Though this would possibly be technically feasible with some Soekris models that have PCI Express capabilities, there would be a non-trivial and as yet undefined amount of engineering work involved for us to make this an operationally supported option. - By expanding hardware support options we increase the burden on our limited-resourced operational team. - The current GE port speed already is a significant overkill for a measurement network that is not designed to do capacity/throughput tests. As a side note: we also have a strong requirement from many of our anchor hosts in other regions of the world to keep the actual bandwidth requirements for the anchors in the order of kilobits per second or less. - Our assessment is that most of our anchor hosts (current and prospective) will be able to support 1G somewhere in their networks for at least the next 3-5 years.
I hope this clarifies our reasoning and addresses your question.
Kind regards, Romeo
Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean
VM image or maybe follow what nlnog's the ring did and automate with an anchor sponsor giving you a base install you can control. That's even easier for me to support then dealing with specific hardware. But this is something to think about for future proofing and not requiring sponsors to find a spot and put it in more ideal locations. Depending on cost, maybe something like moving up to 10g ports that would support 1G with sfp-t adapters. We looked into that for our hardware and turned out we just can't do 1G on most of the hardware we are using these days. Food for thought on what the future anchor design should be as for us it's not about needing 10g bandwidth, it's having a 1G port to plug it into that has become a challenge. Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Colin Johnston <colinj@mx5.org.uk> wrote:
vm virtual image would be great though so that underlying network would be transparent to the application.
Colin
On 20 Apr 2017, at 15:10, Romeo Zwart <romeo.zwart@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Bryan,
On 17/04/13 19:40 , Bryan Socha wrote:
We're finding it harder and harder to support the 1G nic interface on the anchors. We'd love to add more but would need a 10g port at minimum (25G or 40G would also work).
Are there any plans to update them for networks that can't easily support a 1G nic?
Interesting question. :) I can see the logic of this from the perspective of some operators. However, we are not considering adding 10GE or higher port speeds to the RIPE Atlas anchors. The reasons for this are manyfold:
- Though this would possibly be technically feasible with some Soekris models that have PCI Express capabilities, there would be a non-trivial and as yet undefined amount of engineering work involved for us to make this an operationally supported option. - By expanding hardware support options we increase the burden on our limited-resourced operational team. - The current GE port speed already is a significant overkill for a measurement network that is not designed to do capacity/throughput tests. As a side note: we also have a strong requirement from many of our anchor hosts in other regions of the world to keep the actual bandwidth requirements for the anchors in the order of kilobits per second or less. - Our assessment is that most of our anchor hosts (current and prospective) will be able to support 1G somewhere in their networks for at least the next 3-5 years.
I hope this clarifies our reasoning and addresses your question.
Kind regards, Romeo
Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean
Hi, On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 03:26:11PM +0100, Colin Johnston wrote:
vm virtual image would be great though so that underlying network would be transparent to the application.
Welcome back, we've missed your contributions. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (4)
-
Bryan Socha -
Colin Johnston -
Gert Doering -
Romeo Zwart