[Atlas-anchors-pilot] Q&A, part 1

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 18.09.2012, at 9:53 , Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:28:45PM +0200, Romeo Zwart wrote:
>> There is one apparent misunderstanding that I'd like to correct. In the
>> list of hardware details that we sent to this list a while ago, the
>> amount of RAM specified could easily misread as 8GB, whereas the
>> specification really was for 32GB, not 8GB.
> 
> While RAM is cheap, I still think we should take a step back and ask
> ourselves "what do we want the Atlas Anchor boxes to do, and what amount
> of resources will it need to do that".
> 
> If we set out to build a generic "RIPE NCC in a box" system, something
> with 4x600G SAS hard disks and 32G RAM might make sense.
> 
> If we set out to build a replacement for the TTM network, something
> slightly bigger than a 50EUR TL-WR1043ND would easily saturate a 100M
> port with probe reply traffic.
> 
> As stated before, we're not willing to buy a "RIPE NCC in a box" system
> out of our own budget - we have no interest paying for a NRTM box or 
> a dedicated-for-us K.Root instance (there's enough root servers in our 
> region, we currently peer with 3 or 4 instances at national peering points,
> and we pay our share of K.Root already with the LIR fees).
> 
> 
> If there's enough interest in building a "RIPE NCC in a box" system,
> then please stop calling it "Atlas Anchor", because that's not what it
> would be.
> 
> Sorry if I sound like a spoilsport, but I think this is really the core
> of the issue: understand what you're trying to build, and name it so.
> 
> Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster

Gert,

from where I stand what you are doing is to ask us to operate a high quality service on cheap kit. That appears kind of one-sided to me, especially in a pilot situation where requirements are fluid and operational experience is scarce. Maybe the pilot is not for you and you should wait until we move to production. It would be sad, since your requirements significantly influenced the Atlas Anchor design.

Details:

Yes, one intention of the pilot is to evaluate virtualisation for providing multiple services. The pilot hardware cost of slightly more than 3000EUR is quite reasonable considering it includes a hardware service contract. Reliably operating a large number of widely distributed remote systems at a reasonable cost is a goal that is directly opposed to using the cheapest available hardware and economising on maintenance. We cannot have both and we have done our best to strike a balance. It is likely that after evaluation of the pilot results we will offer a smaller hardware alternative that can only do one service. But do not expect it to be in the order of 50EUR. I understand that your motivation for requesting an Atlas Anchor is that we take full responsibility to operate it. 

If the cost of joining the pilot turns out to be too high for you that would be a shame, especially since your requirements determined much of what we aim to achieve with RIPE Atlas Anchors. But maybe then the "one service only" version that we will likely offer after the pilot in Q2/2013 may be acceptable for you. Please re-consider to join the pilot, maybe with only one box.

Daniel