On 17.12.22 03:00, Massimo Candela
wrote:
On
17/12/2022 00:19, Barry Raveendran Greene wrote:
On Dec 16, 2022, at 23:29, Stephane
Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
wrote:
There is a larger problem here, a more
strategic one: such a feature
would contribute to the centralisation of the Internet, which
is
already too important. Tagging some targets are "important"
and
"worthy of measurements" would mean that we consider some HTTP
servers
to be more useful than others. That would be a bad message
from RIPE.
We’ve come full circle - we started with centralized PTTs -
moved to a decentralized ASN/Paul Baran model - now
Re-centralized based on marketing domination.
+1 with Stephane’s observation. The selection of who to measure
is a statement.
+1
Also, while the data would be useful, I don't think the role of
the ripe ncc is to grade commercial services. Let other companies
or individual researchers do that.
On the one hand i agree with Stephane, but on the other hand, it is
a fact that there are a few large providers/CDNs who have a
significant share... of specific webservices. I don't like that
either, but i can't deny it either. I agree, that manually selecting
those providers/CDNs for such a measurement could be understood as a
statement. But maybe there's another way, to select which one of
those providers/CDNs to measure? Instead of manually selecting them,
there could be some sort of "threshold" which a provider/CDN has to
reach, to be part of this kind of measurement. This way, it wouldn't
be a statement, but a static delimitation. I am unsure what kind of
threshold it could be, and how to detect it. It should probably be
some sort of technical value.
BR,
Simon