Skip to main content

You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.


RIPE Meeting:


Working Group:

Test Traffic



Revision Number:


Chair Daniel Karrenberg
Scribe Rene Wilhelm

A. Administrative Matters

Daniel chairs the meeting. Henk Uijterwaal sends his apologies, he had to leave the RIPE 54 meeting because of a family emergency.

Two presentations were added to the agenda:

  • RIPE NCC Test Traffic Update
  • Test Traffic's view of yesterday's network problems

both by Ruben van Staveren. The thus modified agenda was accepted.

B. TTM update - Ruben van Staveren (RIPE NCC)


Ruben gave an update on recent work on TTM at RIPE NCC.
New hardware and updated sofware resulted in a 200-400% performance increase in central data processsing. Afrer a dip in the middle of 2006, the number of active boxes is slowly increasing again. Recent installs include Brasil and Russia.

C. TTM future - Mark Dranse (RIPE NCC)

Mark Dranse reported on RIPE NCC's ideas on the future of TTM.

The vision is to expand and maintain the TTM network, increasing the value of the service to the community at large, and to the owners of the probes. Network and measurement architecture are to be enhanced; improvements to be made to result reporting, TTM network alarms, admin and pricing.

Question: do you have to be a RIPE NCC member to have a box?
Answer: no.

A quick poll of the room shows 3-4 participants tentatively plan to join the task force

D. TTM Multicast Monitoring - Franz Schwarzinger (RIPE NCC)

Franz Schwarzinger reported on his work regarding Multicast Monitoring.

Question: (Jean Durand, renater) do you also monitor deployed IPv6 multicast?

Answer: IPv6 multicast is not yet supported; if there's interest, contact tt-ops, we will see if it is possible to implement.

E. TTM view of network problems (DDoS) at RIPE54

Ruben presented various graphs which show how TTM recorded the connectivity problems coming from the massive DDoS attacks on Estonian IP infrastructure.

Z. A.O.B.

Daniel polled the room on the scheduling of working groups.
How many wuld have a conflict when tt-wg is in parallel to address policy wg?

Result: 7-9 people would have problems.