February 2023 - ripe-atlas - mailman.ripe.net

Verdien 3.0.3
by Ernst J. Oud 07 Sep '23

07 Sep '23

Hi, @Chris Amin: Yes, commit c999953, version 3.0.3 completely solves this. My gratitude is larger than the losses Mr. Musk is making now that Twitter is going down the drain :-) Thanks! Regards, Ernst J. Oud

5 4

Requesting Credits for Research
by Alex Gamero-Garrido 29 Jul '23

29 Jul '23

Hi folks, My name is Alexander Gamero-Garrido and I'm a 5th year PhD student at CAIDA, UC San Diego. We're soon launching a large traceroute campaign for research and could use your generous donation of credits. We'll need about 150 million credits, but any partial amount that gets us closer to that goal is welcome and greatly appreciated. My account is agamerog at eng.ucsd.edu Thank you, Alex -- *Alex Gamero-Garrido* *PhD Student, Computer Science* Web: cseweb.ucsd.edu/~agamerog Center for Applied Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) San Diego Supercomputer Center UC San Diego Pronouns: He/Him/His <https://inboxwhenready.org/?utm_campaign=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_sou…> I'm using Inbox When Ready <https://inboxwhenready.org/?utm_campaign=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_sou…> to protect my focus.

13 15

Re: [atlas] Your Probe shipped
by Inacio Jose 11 Jul '23

11 Jul '23

2 1

upgrading an original soft probe
by Randy Bush 08 Jun '23

08 Jun '23

i have a probe, 1000004, on a deb 10 vm that was installed in the rotterdam hackathon. the detritus looks as if it was built using a deb install of atlasswprobe-5000-1.deb. two days ago, it stopped working in some way; i have not pursued, figuring i was dealing with an antique. is there a path to make it current? randy

4 9

Probe DHCPv6 support
by Aleksi Pirttimaa 19 May '23

19 May '23

Hi! I recently received my v4 probe and I'm very happy with it. But unfortunately it doesn't support DHCPv6. I present a practical reason for implementing a DHCPv6 client on the probe. You see, my ISP doesn't send router advertisements with the prefix for stateless autoconfiguration set, and instead DHCPv6 must be used. I believe their decision could have something to do with the fact that the regulating body here requires ISP's to prevent IP address spoofing in consumer plans. And to meet that requirement my ISP may be using a feature similar to Cisco's IP source guard, where switch ports and/or mac addresses are passively associated to leased ip's or prefixes, breaking SLAAC. Unfortunately they hate letting consumers talk with their engineers so it's difficult to speculate this further. For now, I've put a stateful firewall appliance in front of the probe which provides SLAAC, it works just fine. Do you think a DHCPv6 client should be implemented?

8 13

Re: [atlas] Measurement question
by Michel Stam 20 Feb '23

20 Feb '23

Hello Roberto, I’ve done the exact same measurement too, using the 3 types of traceroute available (ICMP, UDP and TCP). UDP: (https://atlas.ripe.net/measurements/49826077/#general) TCP: (https://atlas.ripe.net/measurements/49826078/#general) ICMP: (https://atlas.ripe.net/measurements/49826076/#general) The way the traceroute works in Atlas is that if 5 hops have been received without response, the trace skips over to TTL 255 and ends the traceroute. This is what you see with TCP and ICMP. The traceroute stops for lack of response. To prove that, I’ve run the trace again, skipping hops 1-7, for both ICMP and TCP: https://atlas.ripe.net/measurements/49826868/#general https://atlas.ripe.net/measurements/49826959/#general Now for the interesting bits: 100.64.0.0/10 is CGN (Carrier Grade NAT), RFC 6598. Looking at the traceroute differently: Hop 1 (AS16509, Amazon EU West, Amazon-02) Hop 2-7 CGN Hop 8-9 (AS unknown, but between UK and US, IPROU3-ARIN, so Amazon IP routing 3) Hop 10 (AS unknown, but between UK and US, IPROU3-ARIN/ARMP-ARIN, Amazon IP routing) Hop 11-15 CGN Hop 16 (AS unknown, presumably US, IPROU3-ARIN/ARMP-ARIN, I presume Amazon IP routing still) Hop 17-19 CGN Hop 20 (AS13335, Cloudflare US) So it seems like every cloud zone interconnect (amazon Europe west, US, then Cloudflare) transitted goes through a CGN setup. Not sure but I can understand if this confuses some types of traffic. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your setup, but the results are interesting. I’ve copied a couple of our researchers onto the mail as they may be interested in this as well. Regards, Michel > On 8 Feb 2023, at 11:33, roberto.lucignani(a)caleidos.it wrote: > > Hi Michael, > for example, one measure ID is this one: 49813750 > The result says there are 7 HOPS. > The result of the traceroute made directly on the host is the following one > traceroute to www.madghigno.tech (172.67.221.209), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets > 1 52.56.0.19 24.303 ms 52.56.0.31 9.067 ms 52.56.0.17 29.663 ms > 2 * 100.65.18.192 7.843 ms 100.65.19.176 6.252 ms > 3 100.66.8.254 1.563 ms 100.66.8.146 0.697 ms 100.66.8.168 1.449 ms > 4 100.66.10.138 8.469 ms 100.66.10.14 5.713 ms 100.66.10.6 8.127 ms > 5 100.66.7.77 1.653 ms 100.66.6.173 2.658 ms * > 6 100.66.4.75 2.726 ms 100.66.4.87 2.327 ms 100.66.4.89 1.550 ms > 7 100.65.10.65 0.533 ms 100.65.11.1 0.857 ms 100.65.10.161 8.616 ms > 8 15.230.158.29 2.062 ms 15.230.158.171 5.998 ms 15.230.158.27 1.617 ms > 9 15.230.158.164 1.315 ms 52.94.33.120 2.089 ms 15.230.158.40 1.484 ms > 10 54.239.101.83 1.440 ms 150.222.65.23 1.358 ms 54.239.101.87 1.897 ms > 11 100.91.211.7 1.368 ms 100.91.13.66 1.956 ms 100.91.13.100 5.077 ms > 12 100.91.210.16 1.837 ms 100.100.6.119 1.848 ms 52.93.134.81 2.178 ms > 13 100.100.73.70 2.434 ms 100.91.203.106 4.546 ms 100.100.85.70 1.139 ms > 14 100.91.207.15 1.289 ms * 100.100.72.67 1.767 ms > 15 100.100.2.76 3.616 ms 100.91.201.140 1.955 ms 100.91.205.18 1.744 ms > 16 99.83.89.19 6.820 ms 100.91.201.1 2.454 ms 100.91.201.97 2.415 ms > 17 100.91.211.89 17.823 ms 172.71.176.2 3.200 ms 172.70.160.2 4.450 ms > 18 100.100.6.77 1.805 ms 100.100.6.3 1.943 ms 100.100.6.111 2.005 ms > 19 100.100.80.70 1.980 ms 100.100.76.134 2.679 ms 100.100.69.134 2.081 ms > 20 172.67.221.209 2.799 ms 100.100.89.209 7.318 ms 100.100.89.17 6.869 ms > Since the website is served by cloudflare the route may vary between requests but the are always around 18/20 HOPS > I don’t understand if I0m missing something here. Let me know if you need further details > Regards, > Roberto > From: Michel Stam <mstam(a)ripe.net> > Date: Wednesday, 8 February 2023 at 10:13 > To: roberto.lucignani(a)caleidos.it <roberto.lucignani(a)caleidos.it> > Subject: Re: [atlas] Measurement question > Hello Roberto, > Would you be able to share screenshots/measurement ids so we can have a look? > Regards, > Michel > > > On 8 Feb 2023, at 09:04, roberto.lucignani(a)caleidos.it wrote: > I’m doing some measurement from one of my software probes, the measure is a traceroute to a destination. > The results I get are completely different from what I see doing the same traceroute directly on host where the probe is installed. I configured the measure to sue the DNS resolution on the probe.. > From the Atlas portal I get a traceroute with 7 hops, doing it directly on the host returns 28 hops, for the same destination. > Why this difference ? > Regards, > Roberto > -- > Mail sent with Outlook for Mac > This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete this message from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free, because information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message that arise as a result of e-mail transmission. > -- > ripe-atlas mailing list > ripe-atlas(a)ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-atlas

2 4

Offering a v1 probe for adoption in RU
by Roman Mamedov 20 Feb '23

20 Feb '23

Hello, I am offering my probe to someone else within Russia for "adoption" (ownership transfer). Despite being a v1, it still runs well with no downtime. Contact me on Telegram via @romanrm to discuss (in Russian or English), or via E-Mail if you don't have an account. Thanks -- With respect, Roman

1 0

Atlas V5 - Rack-Mounting Solution
by Johannes Schiemer 19 Feb '23

19 Feb '23

Dear all, As I have just received my Atlas V5 Probe and wanted to mount it in my Rack, I've decided to 3d-Print a holder for the probe. I've also decided to share it with all of you in the hopes that some of you might find it useful. This is the link to thingiverse: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5864347 Thanks! Greetings, Johannes

1 0

Missing ping and traceroute dumps for 2023-01-23
by Maxime Mouchet 15 Feb '23

15 Feb '23

Hi, I noticed that there is no ping and traceroute dumps for 2023-01-23: https://data-store.ripe.net/datasets/atlas-daily-dumps/2023-01-23/ The other days are fine though. Is there any chance to get these dumps? Or are they just lost? Thanks! Maxime

2 3

Measurement question
by roberto.lucignani＠caleidos.it 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

I’m doing some measurement from one of my software probes, the measure is a traceroute to a destination. The results I get are completely different from what I see doing the same traceroute directly on host where the probe is installed. I configured the measure to sue the DNS resolution on the probe.. >From the Atlas portal I get a traceroute with 7 hops, doing it directly on the host returns 28 hops, for the same destination. Why this difference ? Regards, Roberto -- Mail sent with Outlook for Mac This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete this message from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free, because information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message that arise as a result of e-mail transmission.

1 0

New ripe-atlas-tools and ripe-atlas-cousteau
by Chris Amin 07 Feb '23

07 Feb '23

Dear colleagues, I'm pleased to announce the release of version 3.1.0 of the RIPE Atlas command-line tools, which allow you to use RIPE Atlas from the comfort of your shell: https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/ripe-atlas-tools/ The changes for this release include: * Improved probe-search and measurement-search, including machine-readable "csv" and "tab" output formats * --stream-timeout and --stream-limit added to measure command In addition, this release depends on the new ripe-atlas-cousteau==2.0.0, which uses the new WebSocket-based RIPE Atlas streaming API. Regards, Chris Amin RIPE NCC

1 0

Rate limiting on the APIs
by Robert Kisteleki 06 Feb '23

06 Feb '23

Dear all, We have seen in the past that even with the best intentions, every now and then some users are using excessive amounts of requests to the RIPE Atlas APIs, in some cases resulting in degraded performance to all users. An example for the curious: some AWS account asking the probe API for live queries once a day at 8am like clockwork; over a million queries for probe statuses (note: we don't have a million probes - every query is repeated hundreds or thousands of times) [1] We will apply rate limiting to protect from (some of) these. In particular: * The API in general will impose a limit of no more than 300 queries/second (if done over multiple connections) * The measurement API in particular will impose a limit of 150 queries/second (if done over multiple connections) * When reaching the limit, an HTTP response code of 429 (Too Many Requests; https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6585#section-4) will be given. According to our logs these limits will in general not be visible to users. Users going over these limits will see the 429 response code; client libraries should be able to handle this. We will observe the effect of these measures to determine if we need to tighten further - or perhaps relax them. We plan to apply these changes sometime next week; I'll let you know once they are in place. Regards, Robert [1] a much better way of doing this is to use the probe archive (https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/atlas/probes/archive/) this is one-time fetch of 2MB or so and probe statuses are pretty stable in general

1 1

Fwd: Deprecating failed prefixes in the host
by Brian E Carpenter 02 Feb '23

02 Feb '23

FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Deprecating failed prefixes in the host Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 17:14:22 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter(a)gmail.com> To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops(a)ietf.org> Answering some of the comments made, the new version now at https://github.com/becarpenter/misc/blob/main/deprecator.py picks a random RIPE Atlas anchor probe as its ping target (unless the user supplies their own ping target). Thanks to the RIPE Atlas community for not shooting me down in flames. (An even better approach would be choose a new random ping target every hour or so, it's easy enough to code that too.) On my Windows host, I have noticed some odd behaviour of the source selection logic if a ULA is active. No such problem on Linux. For personal reasons I have no time to track that down right now. Again, there's no pretence that this is an operational solution; it's just a proof of half-baked concept. Regards Brian On 24-Jan-23 15:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi, > > We keeping falling over the same issue with multi-provider multi-homing: routing magic can keep traffic away from the link to/from a failing provider, but hosts don't know about this and keep sending traffic *from* addresses within the failing provider's prefix. > > As Eduard Vasilenko has pointed out, source address selection at the host is the root cause of this, and RFC6724 doesn't specify a way to change source address selection automatically. Also, we don't currently have a mechanism for rapidly withdrawing a failing prefix. > > To be clear, a typical user program acting as a client uses getaddrinfo() to choose a destination address, but does not use bind() to set a source address - instead it uses connect() and the system chooses a source address. So the need is to avoid choosing a source address that lies within the prefix of a failing provider. > > This message suggests a host-only mechanism to achieve this. If you want a name for it, > consider "unhappy eyeballs". I'm not claiming originality, because it seems obvious to me. > > The mechanism is brutal: have a program running continuously on the host that regularly tests the liveness of each assigned source address, e.g., once a minute. The liveness test is simply a ping to some target address somewhere in the Internet, sourced from the address being tested (i.e., it *does* use bind()). If the ping fails several times in a row, deprecate the source address in question, i.e. set its preferred lifetime to zero. RFC6724 will then ignore it, so no new sessions will use it. Keep the deprecated address in the liveness test, and if it starts to work again, un-deprecate it (i.e. restore its lifetime). > > This is brutal because it does nothing for sessions that are already in progress when a source address fails. They will just time out. I'm sure that solutions such as TAPS is proposing will be much more elegant. It's also brutal because it doesn't know anything about prefixes, it just detects failing /128 addresses. (I don't know if there is a userland mechanism for deprecating a whole prefix.) But this works for legacy client code that simply uses connect(). > > Sounds horrible? Yes. It's also very hard to test; I don't have a setup that allows a proper test. But simulating a ping failure isn't so hard. > > You can find a quick and nasty Python version for Windows 10 and Linux at > https://github.com/becarpenter/misc/blob/main/deprecator.py > This is experimental software that might disturb network access; if you run it, it is entirely at your own risk. It needs sudo or Administrator privilege. > > There's an associated and harmless test program at > https://github.com/becarpenter/misc/blob/main/deptest.py > > (By the way, there seems to be an unexpected interaction between the RFC6724 source-selection algorithm and the presence of a ULA on Windows 10: under investigation.) > > Regards > Brian Carpenter

1 0

Encouraging people to upgrade software probe versions
by Seth David Schoen 01 Feb '23

01 Feb '23

Hi, I recently posted two threads ultimately related to the same question, where it turned out that a feature I wanted to use was present in the current software probe release, but not in the old version that I had installed. It was indeed relatively easy to upgrade (as a reply on this list predicted, the upgrade didn't break anything or require any reconfiguration). But I'd still say "relatively easy", because, on the other hand, the upgrade wasn't managed through my OS package manager like the rest of the software on my VPS server. It appears to me that a lot of software probes (like mine was until recently!) are still running whichever software probe version was current when they were first deployed. After all, I don't believe there's automatic software upgrade functionality in the methods that most people are using to deploy these. Is that true from the point of view of the rest of the Atlas community? Is there anything that might usefully be done to encourage people to upgrade periodically? (For example, either sending some kind of e-mail reminder, or distributing probe software via OS package managers, or even including a mechanism in the probe client itself by which it could upgrade itself -- even if as an opt-in feature?)

10 28