44net February 2012

44net@mailman.ampr.org

20 participants
19 discussions

Re: [44net] Intermittent host connectivity issues
by Chris Maness 03 Mar '12

03 Mar '12

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Chris Maness <chris(a)chrismaness.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Raymond Quinn <w6ray(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Hmmm. I see you have a link with Brett, WA7V. >> >> He also has static addresses, and was able to assign a commercial IP address >> to his linux box, as well as his NOS side. >> >> You might want to consult him on how that is done. >> >> In the mean time, does your JNOS have a LAN address of 192.168.x.x ?? >> >> It is behind a DSL Modem/Router. It is a 2wire. However, I have 5 static >> IPs. It does not allow me to use one of the public IPs for Jnos. It does >> not add that IP to the local network list for configuration, and therfore >> does not permit traffic to Jnos. I therfore had to use the munge script to >> build tunnels in Linux. This is ok, because it does protect Jnos from >> attacks. >> >> >> Chris, >> >> It appears that you have the same or quite similar setup that I have. I have >> my Linux box with a public static IP address and use that in the POINTOPOINT >> line. Eventually, the Linux box will appear in the 2wire and when it does, >> should automatically allow all traffic to that static address. > > It does exactly that. > >> >> (Of course, at present JNOS is locking up after a few hours, but that is >> unrelated) >> >> If you don't hear from Brett, I am willing to share what I have worked out. >> I still have more to do, but it may get you started. As always, make sure >> you make a backup of your current setup should it not work as mine does. >> > > It works just fine save one host on AMPR-NET. I wouldn't care save he > is my friend and one of the closest *NOS BBS to my site. > > I had also been in touch with AT&T customer service. The suggested I > purchase a Motorola router from them. I wish my Linux box was back > behind a Cisco on a commercial T1 like it was in the beginning. I had > direct 44net-to-inet connectivity. However, the AT&T network is > controlled by the packet Gustapo goose stepping with their tight > firewall rules. I guess that is good for the brain dead masses, but > it kind of makes playing with the stuff we do a pain in the toosh. > > Thaks es 73's > de Chris KQ6UP My Linux box can ping his Linux box, so that is good. I am not sure I have the whole doted quad with a forward slash business down. I think this is his encap.txt entry: route addprivate 44.16.2.32/27 encap 173.60.166.190 Since I believe that 44.16.2.46 is included in that subnet. Is the above subnet 44.16.2.32-64? Thanks, Chris Maness

3 4

test
by Rob Janssen 27 Feb '12

27 Feb '12

test (sorry folks)

1 0

Re: [44net] Intermittent host connectivity issues Was: New to the Group
by William Lewis 26 Feb '12

26 Feb '12

Hmmm. I see you have a link with Brett, WA7V. He also has static addresses, and was able to assign a commercial IP address to his linux box, as well as his NOS side. You might want to consult him on how that is done. In the mean time, does your JNOS have a LAN address of 192.168.x.x ?? B At 10:42 AM 02/26/12, you wrote: >On Feb 26, 2012 10:20 AM, "William Lewis" ><<mailto:ec@n1oes.org>ec(a)n1oes.org> wrote: > > > > Chris: > > > > Is your station by chance sitting behind a home internet router? > >It is behind a DSL Modem/Router. It is a 2wire. However, I have 5 static >IPs. It does not allow me to use one of the public IPs for Jnos. It does >not add that IP to the local network list for configuration, and therfore >does not permit traffic to Jnos. I therfore had to use the munge script >to build tunnels in Linux. This is ok, because it does protect Jnos from >attacks. > >Thanks, >Chris KQ6UP >_________________________________________ >44Net mailing list >44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu >http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

3 2

Re: [44net] Intermittent host connectivity issues
by Chris Maness 26 Feb '12

26 Feb '12

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 11:34 AM, William Lewis <ec(a)n1oes.org> wrote: > > Hmmm. I see you have a link with Brett, WA7V. > > He also has static addresses, and was able to assign a commercial IP address > to his linux box, as well as his NOS side. > > You might want to consult him on how that is done. > > In the mean time, does your JNOS have a LAN address of 192.168.x.x ?? > > B No, it does not have a 192.168.x.x address. If a host makes a DHCP request on the local lan, the router leases 192.168s and does NAT for them. I have configured the linux box with two IP's bound to the ethernet card 76.238.148.147 and 192.168.1.33. That way I can build static routes in all my desktops and laptops to be able to reach JNOS directly. I can connect with everyone accept for K6HR. It looks like our gatway PUBLIC IP's are not talking. If I try to telnet to my Linux box I get: tel 76.238.148.147 Trying... The escape character is: CTRL-T *** busy from 76.238.148.147:telnet Telnet is enabled as a service on my Linux box. I had noticed this error from almost everyone all the time when I tried to set up JNOS with a public IP. That is why I had set up my gateway with Linux doing the IP over IP tunnels. Now it is working with 99% of the hosts. Chris

1 0

Intermittent host connectivity issues Was: New to the Group
by Chris Maness 26 Feb '12

26 Feb '12

On Feb 26, 2012 10:20 AM, "William Lewis" <ec(a)n1oes.org> wrote: > > Chris: > > Is your station by chance sitting behind a home internet router? It is behind a DSL Modem/Router. It is a 2wire. However, I have 5 static IPs. It does not allow me to use one of the public IPs for Jnos. It does not add that IP to the local network list for configuration, and therfore does not permit traffic to Jnos. I therfore had to use the munge script to build tunnels in Linux. This is ok, because it does protect Jnos from attacks. Thanks, Chris KQ6UP

1 1

Re: [44net] New to the Group
by William Lewis 26 Feb '12

26 Feb '12

Chris: Is your station by chance sitting behind a home internet router? At 07:57 AM 02/26/12, you wrote: >I can't connect or ping k6hr.ampr.org, nor can he ping me. > >I can ping and connect to GVCITY.ampr.org, but pinging towards my side >is flakey for him.

1 0

New to the Group
by Chris Maness 26 Feb '12

26 Feb '12

Hello everyone, I am new to the group. I am the sysop of a new BBS kq6up.ampr.org. I just recently got back in to packet radio, and found a lot of renewed interest in packet radio in my local area. I decided to put up another JNOS BBS. It has been about 10 years since I have had a BBS. I have had more users in the past month (from the radio port) than I did over entire lifetime of my last BBS. I can connect to almost everyone that I have tried to in the ampr-net world. I am building my tunnels in Linux. I am having connectivity issues with two host (both have fresh encap.txt files). I can't connect or ping k6hr.ampr.org, nor can he ping me. I can ping and connect to GVCITY.ampr.org, but pinging towards my side is flakey for him. Should I try running RIP and forget about it, or are these problems fairly easy to track down and fix? Thanks, Chris Maness

1 0

On the Issue of Subnets
by Geoff Joy 25 Feb '12

25 Feb '12

I wrote a paper back in the 1995-1999 time frame when packet was fairly active in my area regarding when and why to subnet. I received about an equal number of complaints from the linear-allocation advocates versus the subnetting advocates with good reasons on both sides for doing one or the other. I have searched my old hard drives for my original document but I can't seem to find it so I will outline the basic scheme again. My first plan was to dedicate bits in the address plan for geography/frequency and other factors but Brian talked me out of making any plan more complex than it already was. He also informed me of his reservation of the first 2 bits in the third octet for his use in future, something I was unaware of when I assumed the post. This made the CIDR mask 44.18.0.0/18 instead of the expected /16. This gave me effectively only 6 bits in the third octet to play with. Next came the question of how big to make the subnets. I don't have multiple counties to play with and I don't coordinate a whole state so topologically my region is pretty flat, being two counties, but still geographically very large, San Bernardino being the largest county in the U.S. but sparsely populated. Considering the population of hams in the region and the number of hosts addresses within 44.18/16 I didn't expect to have a problem running out of addresses no matter what scheme we chose. I was pretty much stuck with subnet 0, being the linear assignment scheme I inherited from the previous coordinator and we simply followed the pattern initiated in Los Angeles County where the ham population was more active and dense. My research into the RFCs and the nature of subnets and CIDR masks led me to a proposal to mask the subnet bits downward and the host bits upward, I don't recall the source of the document at this time but it might have been an RFC. Thus, the zeroeth subnet could stay in place as two-meter and mobile nodes and the _first_ subnet would be 32, not 1 as you might expect in a linear scheme. The bits map as follows: 44.18.0.0/18 The S.B. & Riverside Co. Group 6 bits reserved for CIDR subnets within the group. c = CIDR, x = hosts 00101100.00010010.00cccccc.xxxxxxxx The CIDR mask for the subnets becomes 44.18.0.0/24 and the total number of subnets is 64. The CIDR bits are allocated in sequence from MSB to LSB, thus: Subnet Bitmap 0 00101100.00010010.00000000.xxxxxxxx 44.18.0.x/24 1 00101100.00010010.00100000.xxxxxxxx 44.18.32.x/24 2 00101100.00010010.00010000.xxxxxxxx 44.18.16.x/24 3 00101100.00010010.00110000.xxxxxxxx 44.18.48.x/24 4 00101100.00010010.00001000.xxxxxxxx 44.18.8.x/24 5 00101100.00010010.00101000.xxxxxxxx 44.18.40.x/24 ... 63 00101100.00010010.00111111.xxxxxxxx 44.18.63.x/24 By growing the subnets downward and the hosts upward linearly, if a subnet were to become overpopulated with hosts, it can expand upward into another subnet: 2 00101100.00010010.00010000.11111111 44.18.16.0/24 rolls over into x 00101100.00010010.00010001.00000000 44.18.33.0/24 I then becomes possible to allocate entire subnets to a single group, (e.g., ARES, RACES) and a single band (6 meters) without regard to the number of hosts needed in that subnet. Connectivity and routing in Southern California can be sparse and geographically large, for instance, a 2 meter and 6 meter digipeater on Big Bear covering San Bernardino and Ontario California and reaching into Arizona and Nevada but seeing less than two dozen active nodes. The implications for static routing are straight forward. To get to any subnet one merely needs to route to the nearest host in 44.18/18 and the most any host needs is 63 routes. This was my solution, your mileage may vary. I never received any feedback regarding this solution until I googled this: http://www.snarked.org/~scdcc/tcpip-18.html I'll be interested in reading the comments from the list.

6 13

Re: [44net] On the Issue of Subnets (fwd)
by Tim Osburn 25 Feb '12

25 Feb '12

This might be a good time to implement a rwhoisd server for the whole 44/8 network. This way for the people who want to register a block of any size we can have an easily accessible and viewable whois entries. Also anyone, anywhere can find out what is assigned to who regardless of it's block size and regardless if there are DNS entries or not. Then it would fall back to the regional coordinator if no entries were made for the query being checked, and then back to the top parent of Brian for 44/8 of no coordinator assigned. This is a proven method as ARIN has been using this for years on their whois server. Works very well. Assuming that if 44.X.X.0 is assigned something in DNS that it's broken into a /24 I believe is not a good idea as it might actually be a smaller or larger subnetmask. /24 can be very wasteful if you're not using most of it. I would say it would be more common to hand out /27's or /26's. This would also lend it's self nicely into IPv6, since that is supported as well if we get space. Tim Osburn www.osburn.com 206.812.6214 W7RSZ On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Brian Kantor wrote: > Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:13:48 -0800 > From: Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> > Reply-To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> > To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> > Subject: Re: [44net] On the Issue of Subnets > > So it seems to me that we have two classes of people requesting address > allocations from their local coordinators: > > 1. those who are planning to operate a regional router (radio- or > tunnel-based gateway) > > 2. those who are planning to use an existing router. > > How should we handle these? > > It's apparent that some scheme like Geoff's for allocating a subnet block to > the first group is wise. It's probably not necessary to actually register > the network (0'th) address nor the broadcast (all-ones) in the DNS but > they're still part of the allocation. Still, the entire block (a /24 in > Geoff's scheme) should be reserved by the coordinator for that router > operator. > > Do we (for a /24) enter 254 addresses into the DNS every time we register a > router block? I don't think that's necessary, although we've done it for a > select few blocks. > > At our current level of usage, perhaps it's enough to register only the first > 4 or 8 or 16 addresses in the block so that experiments can begin, and > register more as activity grows. > > In effect, this makes each router/gateway operator a delegated coordinator > for his subnet block, as all further allocation from his block has to be > coordinated with him. > > Is this getting too complicated? > > Ideas? > - Brian > _________________________________________ > 44Net mailing list > 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu > http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net >

1 0

mailing list protocol change
by Brian Kantor 24 Feb '12

24 Feb '12

I've set the 'reply to list' option ON for this list, so by default your replies to discussions should from now on be automatically directed to the list rather than to the original poster. You'll probably have to take specific action in your mail client if you want to reply privately only to the person posting the message. I think this is more in keeping with the spirit of the list, and it had been asked for by a few of the subscribers. If this causes difficulties, please let me know and I can turn it back OFF. - Brian

3 2

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net February 2012