[atlas] "Spoofing" tests.

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 at 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
>
>
>
>
>