Is it possible to get the IPIP routes delivered by conventional routing
protocols (RIP, OSPF, etc) rather than running a custom daemon ?
Just curious.
-Neil
--
Neil Johnson -N0SFH
http://erudicon.com
I can't seem to get rip44d to hear the routes. I'm sure I'm doing something
dumb.
Here is my /etc/networking/interfaces configuration:
# Tunnel to amprnet
auto tun0
iface tun0 inet static
address 44.50.128.1
netmask 255.255.255.0
broadcast 44.50.128.255
pre-up iptunnel add tun0 mode ipip local 128.255.134.47
post-down iptunnel del tun0
If I run tcpdump on the tun0 interface I can see the routes coming down,
but when I run rip44d it never hears them.
I did I miss. I'm running ubuntu 12.04 LTS.
Thanks.
-Neil
--
Neil Johnson -N0SFH
http://erudicon.com
Hi,
First time posting on this list.
I am new to AMPRNet and actually still struggling to make gateway. I
realized that I have to download encap file with route definitions and
load them into my gateway router so my networks sees all other networks
in 44/8.
It is suggested that I have to get up Linux box that will do the gateway
job.
Thing is, I want to use Mikrotik router that I already have in use, and
which handles my network. I do not need another box just to play gateway.
I do not understand why standard dynamic routing protocol is not used in
first place, so we would not have this issue at all as all routers are
capable of dynamic routing?!?!
I noticed that there is a script made by Marius, YO2LOJ, that reads
encap file and then sets Mikrotik up to it. But, to run that script I
again need Linux box. I noticed there are other scripts that do the same
for other kind of routers.
I guess there are number of fellow hams that would like to use already
set router and not additional Linux box.
Why then such scripts are not run at portal.ampr.org so we can, besides
encap file, download prepared files for popular routers, so we do not
need to make conversions for ourselves?
If such download is provided, I would be able make Mikrotik itself to
download file and run it to set routes. I would not need additional
Linux box to do that.
That would make whole process simpler, easier to implement and even
cheaper (in manner not just money, but efforts, physical space,
maintenance...) and that could motivate more people to get involved.
If resources on portal.ampr.org are limited, mirror copies of those
files could be easily established to prevent problems.
YT9TP
Pedja
On 7/25/13 1:40 PM, Marc, LX1DUC wrote:
> However I'm not sure I'm able to provide an IS-IS capable router for
> the trial...
A Juniper O-series might work ;)
I think the 2811s from cisco are cheap enough now (under 400 on ebay). The
issue with cisco is you need some one to get the code for you now that they've
locked down the CCO site.
I'd love to use ALU gear, but it's just to expensive on the used market.
But this is all just discussion on how we wan to do it at this point.
We'll need some detailed proposals and come to a conciseness on it.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
Marc, LX1DUC,
Per Brian in a Jan 22 note:
44.0.0.1 responds to pings received from the Internet. It does not
respond to pings coming into it over an encap connection to it, for
some reason that I've not been able to figure out. I believe it to
be a difficulty in getting it to recognize decapped pings.
If you are receiving the rip44 announcements, you have properly
configured your tunnel to receive IP-in-IP encapsulation from 44.0.0.1.
Feel free to use:
http://44.60.44.10/tools
or
http://kb3vwg-010.ampr.org/tools
I see your encap as:
44.161.202.0 via 46.29.183.253 dev tunl0 onlink window 840
44.161.203.0 via 46.29.183.253 dev tunl0 onlink window 840
44.161.229.0 via 46.29.183.253 dev tunl0 onlink window 840
Also, I am unable to ping 44.161.229.126. What script/configuration did
you use to enable your tunnel; did you specify a local or remote IP
(un-needed)? Feel free to look at my script at http://44.60.44.13/startampr
73,
Lynwood
KB3VWG
Any of you folks planning on attending the TAPR/ARRL Digital
Communications Conference in Seattle this September?
<http://www.tapr.org/dcc/>
I hope to be there.
- Brian
I have been following the conversation on what can we use the modern version
of the 44net for other than a futile attempt to compete with cable modems,
4G/LTE or fiber-optic links. The purpose of the 44net/JNOS project that we
are putting together for NYC-ARECS is for providing email/telnet services
for a served client in case their connection goes down or does not exist
in an ad-hoc location. I am wondering if we can expand on the usual email
and telnet sessions at 1k2 or even 9k6 to include things like routing our
own VoIP/Echolink-type connections? The Echolink manual states that it needs
24K+ data speeds to connect to it's servers and maintain a voice connection.
I know that there are other codecs that can work at lower speeds as well as
ongoing work with FreeDV operating in 1.5 Khz on 20 meters! Ideas anyone?
On 7/25/13 9:27 AM, Brian Rogers wrote:
> That's why I completed the work started by Hessu and Marius in regards
> to axMail-Fax... however there's already a system out there called
> Winlink 2000 that uses HF, FM, and Internet to handle email. When I
> query those who run it I get almost always these 3 identical comments:
>
> 1) It's windows, there's no learning curve of nos or linux involved.
> 2) I can use the resources I have already without any _additional
> expenses_.
> 3) I don't have time to learn amprnet.
>
> ... then there was the issue raised about 3-party relaying, so now we
> have governmental restrictions shying us away from certain applications.
>
> How we route is all well and good, but if you're not:
> - providing useful services, some of which may be unique
> - have a user base to use this network
> - cost effectiveness (especially to the seniors who may be on fixed
> incomes)
I have no interest in limiting myself to what some old ignorant hams can
understand. This is one of the reasons I got out of radio for a number of
years, as it was not new or challenging due to these guys. I want to sit down
an study if I don't understand it, not gripe about it (and my angina) on FM.
We really have two discussions here. One is global BGP peering and a 44-net
back bone, the other is the end user connecting over tunnels or dedicated
links to the backbone.
The backbone should be based on standard routing protocols and be vendor
agnostic (ie ALU/CSCO/JNPR), as I could see having a router and peering link
donated, but if we need to rack a linux box, we'll have an issue.
The individual backbone POP's can interconnect with the end users over any
method they want. (I'd say we need to support IPIP or GRE tunnels as standard
at any POP)
For an end user wanting a /29 or /31 they would pick a "local" AMPR POP, and
link in with them.
Thoughts?
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
On 7/25/13 11:59 AM, Marc, LX1DUC wrote:
> What is your experience with that setup? Does it always (99.999% :-D)
> work? If so, count me in an let's go with it.
I've been running Cisco 1811's and 2800's in my local lan at home connecting
me to my datacenter in tampa. (don't tell my day job, lol).
I am running the MSS adjust and have no issues with it. Even without it, all
major sites on the internet work, only smaller sites have an issue.
We should not be limiting ourselves due to other peoples broken network
designs. On the internet between peering points, where clue is found, I've
never had an issue with icmp blocked. Now on the GRX, yes....
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
On 7/24/13 6:33 PM, Eric Fort wrote:
> Where are you. I'm trying to get people together in Southern California to
> do pretty much exactly the same thing.
I'm about as far from San Diego as you can get and still be in the US :)
I'm in St Petersburg, FL. Not many local hams here who want to mess with this
stuff, I have a few who I know from work and we're playing with some
re-purposed Alvarion radios.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
