[atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Tue Nov 10 13:20:39 CET 2015
On 2015-11-10 11:18, Stephan Wolf wrote:
> ANCHOR as an VM would really make sense.
> What do you think about this ?
I think this would really be a BAD idea! The anchors are meant to be more
capable and more stable than the candy probes. Messing around with that
concept should not be done, imho.
> Just my 2 cents .-)
...same here :-)
Wilfried
PS: I myself do see the beauty of the idea to virtualize the (candy-)probes,
but I have - already a while ago - been convinced that the data generated
by them should *not* be mixed in with the data from those under full NCC
control. And whether those VM probes should even be catalogued by the NCC
is another open question.
> Cheers,
> Stephan
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]