Good afternoon,
It would see that 44.133.48.66 is popping, snmpding, and other
amounts of traffic from time to time to various ampr.org systems
and doing so *without warning* type of thing. I just got hit with
a bunch of SNMP requests, others have been hit with POP requests.
Can anyone find out who the owner of that particular system or
network is, so that I can contact the entity or person.
Or perhaps a bit more draconian, can someone deal with it.
Thanks in advance.
Maiko Langelaar
VE4KLM
Guys
Can someone please send me a current encap file please.
If there is somneone lurking - please add me to the daily email list so I
dont have to keep on asking
Is there any desiginated address pool for ipv6
Sam
Hi Brian,
since the line for routed prefixes of a single gateway at Jim Fullers
mailing robot is limited, I combined the prefix of austria (44.143/16)
and switzerland (44.142/16) to 44.142/15. Even the german HAMNET has
44.224/15.
Marius, YO2LOJ, just told me that he doesn't receive these prefixes from
"amprgw" by RIP. I guess the amprgw-code doesn't allow prefixes wider
than /16. Can you check the code and allow even /15 subnet masks?
I have no idea how to overcome this line limit :( Currently DB0FHN is
the central gateway "translating" from IPIP-networks to the HAMNET and
vice versa:
db0fhn:~# grep 141.75.245.225 /opt/encap/encap.txt
route addprivate 44.130/16 encap 141.75.245.225
route addprivate 44.142/15 encap 141.75.245.225
route addprivate 44.151/16 encap 141.75.245.225
route addprivate 44.161/16 encap 141.75.245.225
route addprivate 44.224/15 encap 141.75.245.225
route addprivate 44.134.189/24 encap 141.75.245.225
route addprivate 44.134.190/23 encap 141.75.245.225
I know that there is even some other software (with filters limiting to
/16) out there, but I hope most of them will accept /15.
Thank you,
73,
Jann
DG8NGN
DL-IP-coordination
Btw: I'll attend the HAM RADIO exhibition in Friedrichshafen if anyone
wants to have an eyeball QSO.
--
Jann Traschewski, Georgenschwaigstr. 10, D-80807 Munich, Germany
Tel.: +49-911-696971, Mobile: +49-170-1045937, E-Mail: jann(a)gmx.de
Ham: DG8NGN / DB0VOX, http://www.qsl.net/dg8ngn
Hi All,
following the recent discussions on this list I like to remind that
there are really active regions using net44. In preparation of the HAM
RADIO in Friedrichshafen (www.hamradio-friedrichshafen.de/ham-en) I
created an overview of such a region. Please find the "HAMNET Overview
2012" at http://db0fhn.efi.fh-nuernberg.de/doku.php?id=start&#hamnet
---
As one of the IP-coordinators for this region I'm very happy to be able
to use 44/8 for the allocations. Two reasons for that:
* 44/8 will never clash with our radio amateurs private used RFC1918
addresses within 10/8, 172.16/12 or 192.168/16. They can fully integrate
AMPR access into their LAN.
* I can easily adjust my firewall rules to distinguish between radio
amateurs (44/8) and the rest of the internet. Discussions about CIDR
makes me nervous :D
---
Currently I'm thinking about different tunnel mechanism for net44 and I
don't know the answer :)
On one hand we have our stable system to distribute information about
IP-ENCAP (protocol #4) tunnels to net44-routes by E-Mail, FTP or RIP.
Routing information will be updated through the robot once a day. --> no
realtime
On the other hand we have manual IP-ENCAP tunnels for our tunnels within
the HAMNET (a part of the AMPRNet). We speak BGPv4 over these tunnels
and get realtime routing information. --> no automatic tunnels
I don't know what would be the best for tunneling. Isn't there a proper
mesh protocol? I did have a look at OpenNHRP, but it will not fit our
needs regarding a simple, automatic, realtime capable solution.
---
I do like the posting from Hessu, OH7LZB, about the different technical
solutions to do direct announcements on the Internet. Right questions to
be answered... However at this stage I guess most AMPRNet-systems will
not be able to directly communicate to net44-destinations with their own
net44-ip-address.
73,
Jann
DG8NGN
--
Jann Traschewski, Georgenschwaigstr. 10, D-80807 Munich, Germany
Tel.: +49-911-696971, Mobile: +49-170-1045937, E-Mail: jann(a)gmx.de
Ham: DG8NGN / DB0VOX, http://www.qsl.net/dg8ngn
Even better to make it one dedicated asn.
VK4FQ/VK4TTT Sam <vk4fq(a)smellyblackdog.com.au> skrev:
>(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>_______________________________________________
>Easy
>Restrict it to ASN's that belong to Radio Groups / Clubs individuals
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Brian Kantor" <Brian(a)UCSD.Edu>
>To: "AMPRNet working group" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
>Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 11:39 PM
>Subject: Re: [44net] Use of the network
>
>
>> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>> _______________________________________________
>> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 07:53:10AM -0400, Ralph wrote:
>>> If I am a Ham, and have the right to use the space, and it is provided to
>>> me
>>> over Non-Amateur-Radio means (i.e. Routed to me by my ISP over wireless,
>>> fiber, tin cans and a string), then I feel that I can and will use it for
>>> what I want.
>>
>> That is precisely why it is necessary to have contractual restrictions to
>> keep the network limited to ham radio related activities.
>>
>> One proposal was that all endpoints must be ham stations or facilities
>> primarily provided by and for hams.
>>
>> I rather like that; it's fairly non-restrictive and allows for just about
>> any
>> kind of transport or intermediate routing but should keep the netspace
>> from
>> being subverted to commercial interests.
>> - Brian
>> _________________________________________
>> 44Net mailing list
>> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
>> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
>>
>
>
>_________________________________________
>44Net mailing list
>44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
>http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
Hi Eric,
I've done a lot of work making openwrt based hotspot networks in the
past. ddwrt is useful, but there's a couple of issues that come to mind.
Firstly with ddwrt using openvpn you'd have to make changes to
mirrorshades to support openvpn and do you really need the overhead of
encryption?
Secondly with ddwrt the ability to tune to the ham band is only
possible by using a paid for version that has 'superchannel'
functionality.
It should be fairly simple to create an openwrt image that sets up an
unencrypted tunnel to mirrorshades, however I've never toyed with
setting odd frequencies on them. Also given that you wouldn't have
unused packages installed you could use the space to install something
amateur radio related.
Finally how would you stop non-ham access?
-Max G7UOZ.
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 12:00 -0700, 44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
wrote:
> Has anyone used ddwrt, especially the vpn version to setup a tunnel to ucsd
> > then run rip to get routing announcements? just sounds like a neat low
> > cost way to get a gateway running. This would be trivial if one could run
> > openvpn to mirrorshades.
> >
> > Eric
> > AF6EP
Hi,
I've got two machines running here on the, 44.155.6.225 and
44.155.6.226. I'd appreciate if someone on the 44-net could just check
they can reach 44.155.2.226 for me please (it could be slow, machine is
going an apt-get update at the moment).
Also, would anyone be in a position to tell me what the best wireless
mesh protocol to use is at the moment. These are two Icom ID-1 D-star
radios. I've two more that two local hams are going to put running for
me on high points and I'd like to run something 'mesh' on the nodes to
allow me to get back to the gateway (225) from anywhere within range of
any three?
Regards
John
EI7IG
I am also interested in implementing some sort of openVPN tunnel with
RIP listener on a OpenWRT platform. It's been ages since we had any
wormhole connectivity here in Wisconsin (Wigate/KB9BYQ days). And
back then it really wasn't implemented correctly in my opinion.
As many know, a few of us here in Green Bay, Wisconsin have been
experimenting with non-traditional alternatives to AX.25. More
recently the 420 MHz 802.11 options.
What I really am waiting for is someone to design some amplifiers for
these things. We have been using 900 MHz 802.11 with a 5 MHz channel
width for some point to multipoint links.
In our mobile tests on 900 MHz, the throughput suffers with the
multipath from being in motion, etc. So be aware of that, 56 k will
quickly be come 10k or worse.
At 5 watts on 900 MHz, we manage to pull off 5 mile non-line of site
omni-to-omni links with strong signals. A configuration conducive to
a Mesh Network. On 900 MHz noise is a problem though, which also
results in reduced throughput. So I'd like to be doing 5 watts on 420
MHz.
The RFM12BP looks like a way to pull of 19 to 24 kbps on 70cm cheap.
Amplifiers for this should be much easier.
Steve, KB9MWR
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:00:30 -0800
> From: Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com>
> To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [44net] (no subject)
>
> Why would I or anyone else for that matter use anything that slow over
> wireless when multi megabit radios that will link reasonably long distances
> can be had for $50-100ea. These radios connect via ethernet with no
> special software. No I don't have any 56k radios on order, I don't see
> them as worth the cost to salvage from the trash bin next door.
>
> Eric
> AF6EP
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:26:04 -0700
> From: David Josephson WA6NMF <wa6nmf(a)josephson.com>
> To: eric.fort(a)gmail.com, AMPRNet working group
> <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [44net] (no subject)
>
> On 6/8/2012 12:00 PM, Eric Fort wrote:
>> Why would I or anyone else for that matter use anything that slow over
>> wireless when multi megabit radios that will link reasonably long
>> distances can be had for $50-100ea. These radios connect via ethernet
>> with no special software. No I don't have any 56k radios on order, I
>> don't see them as worth the cost to salvage from the trash bin next door.
>
> Two reasons: long point-to-point hops and mobile.
>
> I can see a real utility for a 56k backbone with 100+ mile hops which
> can easily be done on 420 with fewer complications (except in PAVE PAWS
> areas) than on the higher bands. Likewise, mobile service with omni
> antennas is practical over 20+ miles on 420.
>
> David WA6NMF
First I think the idea here is to get more ways into 44 than mirrorshades.
If ISPs are willing to take delegations for CIDRs of 44 then that is one
side of the formula. This may be a few or possibly one per /16, I don't
think we should be propagating this all the way to /30 subnets.
The other side is to bring in pockets of activity (LANs) into these "edge
routers", which will often be VPN servers for tunnels from the LANs. The
problem we have now is that almost all of the tunnel configuration and
methods are tied to non-standard, uncommon, or ancient technology. We
don't have to have just one VPN solution, e.g. it doesn't have to always be
IPIP using JNOS, or even OpenVPN. It just has to be a VPN/Tunnel protocol
that the edge router or routers support for those LANs connecting to them.
OpenVPN, L2TP, MPLS, ... the key is that it is a standard, widely
deployed, authenticated, and easy to setup. I can take $60 router off the
shelf, provide a standard configuration and deploy it very quickly using
L2TP. A new LAN would be able to take a script, plug in their credentials
(for a primary and fallback edge router) and be up in short order, whether
they are on a public / private (natted) address, static or dynamic.
Not everyone setting up a LAN will be a network engineer, so we need
recipes for some common "off the shelf" routing solutions that are pretty
solid for someone following directions.
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Elias V. Basse III <kd5jfe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> What about an ipip server that links openvpn to the mirrorshades ipip link?
>
> This would allow coexistence of both protocols.
>
> 73 de KD5JFE
> Elias
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _________________________________________
> 44Net mailing list
> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
>
As well all of a advertised block must me advertised only from a single asn. This is where this will start to get tricky.
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Michael Fox - N6MEF
Sent: 2012-03-16 12:56
To: 'AMPRNet working group'
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
There are different levels of peering.
The policies below describe tier 1/2 peering between the big guys. Most
peering relationships are not at that level.
Many small businesses have peering with more than one service provider.
It's quite common. The current startup I work for has a /24 that they
announce to their colo provider in San Francisco, as well as the ISP that
serves their HQ location further down the peninsula. (The colo and their HQ
are tied together as one ASN).
Michael
N6MEF
-----Original Message-----
From: 44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
[mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Tim
Pozar
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:43 AM
To: AMPRNet working group
Subject: Re: [44net] directly routed subnets
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Mar 16, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
> Perhaps I should start collecting AUPs from various sources rather
> than having to create one from scratch.
>
> URLs to model AUPs would be appreciated.
In concern of BGP peering...
You can see some of the hoops that ARIN requires for an ASN at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html
See section 5 <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#five> for ASN
requirements.
Certainly there are policies for peering that other ASNs. Some of these
policies are good to look at for requirements for announcing address space.
Some of the requirements are a bit onerous and don't apply. Comcast has
their set of requirements at:
http://www.comcast.com/peering/
Certainly things like "Applicant must operate a US-wide IP backbone whose
links are primarily 10 Gbps or greater" should not be a requirement. But
points like:
* Applicant must have a professionally managed 24x7 NOC and agree to
repair or otherwise remedy any problems within a reasonable timeframe.
Applicant must also agree to actively cooperate to resolve security
incidents, denial of service attacks, and other operational problems.
or
* Applicant must maintain responsive abuse contacts for reporting
and dealing with UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email), technical contact
information for capacity planning and provisioning and administrative
contacts for all legal notices.
may be a good idea. The latter one would be needed to help resolve
poisoning of address space and getting listed on various RBLs.
Other sites that have peering requirements can be seen at:
ATT - http://www.corp.att.com/peering/
Verizon - http://www.verizonbusiness.com/terms/peering/
AOL - http://www.atdn.net/settlement_free_int.shtml
MFN/Abovenet - http://www.above.net/peering/
If folks want can make a stab at a draft for requirements for someone
announcing 44/8 space.
Tim
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
