[mat-wg] IPv6 extension headers support on RIPE Atlas

On 2013.11.06. 18:33, Mike Hughes wrote:
> On 6 November 2013 15:56, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com <mailto:randy at psg.com>>
> wrote:
> 
>     > To ensure that RIPE Atlas is not used (intentionally or not) as a
>     > distributed attack system we could consider:
>     > - limiting # of probes simultaneously running such measurements to a
>     >   low number.
>     > - requiring explicit permission of the probe owner to run such UDM.
> 
>     this seems prudent, though i worry that the last point does not scale
>     well.
> 
> 
> Thinking about how we could make this last point scale better...
> 
> I can see there are situations where some probe owners just wouldn't want to
> get involved in such measurements at all, and cases where a receptive probe
> owner may have probes in many different networks (on which they have varying
> levels of privilege), and therefore while wanting to take part may need
> probe-by probe granularity to ensure that they don't, for instance, break a
> customer's network.
> 
> Probe owners could be given an option to opt-out on an account-wide basis,
> or opt-in some or all of their probes, but this doesn't automatically mean
> they consent to every "special" measurement, just that they will consider
> requests for consent.

With these kind of things it's generally better to use an opt-in approach.
At the moment we don't have good statistics about how many of our users
(hosts) would read such a call for participation, let alone how many would
be willing to opt in.

However, we are working on a few bits and pieces that will let hosts
describe their probe/installation better (for example marking probes as
"home vs backbone", connection type, nat/no-nat etc. -- see the mail thread
on the Atlas mailing list). This could be a good indicator about how many
hosts we can mobilise for such a call.

Regards,
Robert