Subject: [Maprg] Identifying target addresses

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 16:02:10 -0400

Hi All,
     A couple of the talks at today's MAPRG meeting raised the issue of
being able to identify addresses in other networks to use as the target
of reachability tests (e.g., traceroute). In the case of networks
willing to cooperate in such tests, there is a way for them to advertise
the address(es) to be used.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5943.txt

I could imagine that Eric's talk on testing IPv6 extension header
handling could be extended by getting cooperating networks to deploy the
RPSL attribute described in the above RFC.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Robert Kisteleki <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 15:54:00 +0200

> RPSL attribute described in the above RFC.

Coincidentally, we've just published a RIPE Labs article about the usage of
pingable: attributes in the RIPE database. See below for the announcement.

Regards,
Robert

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [db-wg] New on RIPE Labs: How Pingable are the Pingables?
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:25:42 +0200
From: Mirjam Kuehne <[email-masked]>
To: RIPE Database WG <[email-masked]>

Dear colleagues,

We look at how the "pingable:" and "ping-hdl:" attributes have been
adopted in the last five years and how reachable the pingable addresses
registered in the RIPE Database are when pinged from RIPE Atlas.

Spoiler alert: It could be better.

Please find the details on RIPE Labs:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/how-pingable-are-the-pingables?pk_campaign=labs&pk_kwd=list-dbwg

Kind regards,
Mirjam Kuehne
RIPE NCC

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:13:14 -0400

Hi Robert,

> pingable: attributes in the RIPE database. See below for the announcement.

Thanks for the info. While I am disappointed with the results shown, I
am still optimistic that 5943 is a viable way for network operators to
advertise endpoints that can be used in MAPRG-related measurements.

Regards,
Brian