On 7/24/13 4:33 PM, Neil Johnson wrote:
> How would local gateways connect ? A Tunnel(s) to the global gateways ?
>
> I'm trying to imagine explaining to someone how to configure an IGP
> (especially IS-IS) :-)
yes, IPIP tunnels or GRE to their local gateway. If they wanted to have
redundancy into the AMPR net they could do IS-IS L1 to the two gateways over
these tunnels. The backbone routers would all be L2 routers.
We could do OSPF, but I see the whole area 0 thing being a bad architectural
limitation. Any design we come up with should be redundant and scalable for
all hams to benefit from.
Really if you can't configure a link state routing protocol, should you even
be trying to setup a redundant connection?
Granted it would be optional, but it would give some real protection if one of
the border routers goes down.
We only have a /8 of space, and even subdivided into /24's it's only 65k
routes, so pretty much any router on the core can handle it.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
Bill, I am not yet. Still using hard routes over the air. When/if
the over-the-air network grows in users and capable speed, that would
make perfect sense to implement.
As for ampr.org email, does anyone care to document setting up a
sendmail server for their gateway? Spam control is always a big
headache. I have been using a 3rd party mail exchanger, as that seems
easier.
And since my gateways are somewhat experimental here, I am not
subscribed using kb9mwr(a)kb9mwr.ampr.org to this list, as I don't like
worrying about bounced mail.
But my ampr address does work, and go over RF using pop3 pooling.
Steve
------Quote-----
So how are folks actually making use of all this nifty routing
technology on the air with Amateur Radio these days?
I don't remember the last time I've seen an "ampr.org" email address
here on the list. I kinda remember the last time I had one that
worked...
Bill
On 7/16/13 11:00 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
> A solution would be to have the border router at each of the
> directly-connected subnets also have a full set of tunnel routes and
> interfaces installed, as it could then participate in the tunnel mesh
> and should then be in the encap file. I don't see commercial internet
> providers doing that.
>
> So this means that in order for the the directly-connected subnets to
> also participate in the tunnel mesh, there has to be a tunnel-enabled
> router downstream of the connection to the commercial Internet. Thus the
> only advantage of being directly-connected is simply an independent (quite
> possibly higher-bandwidth) connection to the commercial Internet backbone.
> It doesn't improve internal connectivity in the AMPRNet at all. We still
> need the tunnels for that.
Admittedly, I've been a bit tardy in getting my BGP session up with my
provider (summer is always busy for me), but perhaps there is a better way to
do this.
What I envision would be to have a few regional AMPR BGP routers/peering
points. AMPR would need and ASN of course (I'd be willing to put up the money
for this from ARIN), some hardware and a few friendly providers across the
globe. I have one friendly provider, and I'm sure we could find a few more.
Hardware is up to us, I'd prefer an actual router (ALU/Cisco/JNPR), but there
is no reason openbgpd on a *nix box wouldn't work.
So you would have each peering point announcing 44/8 but behind the peering
routers would be a set of (GRE) tunnels between all the routers. The 44net
BGP routers would run I-BGP across these tunnels (or ISIS/OSPF, but I feel
IBGP would make more sense to manage redistribution of routes as it's got more
"policy knobs" than OSPF and to a lessor extent ISIS.) The 44net non bgp
users would then have IP-IP tunnels to their closest 44net peering router.
For optimized routing (as it makes no sense to me for .AU users to tunnel
through UCSD) we could have routing between the 44net routers announce more
specific routes for directly connected subnets. We'd have to manage this, as
I'm sure we don't want to add another 1000 routes to the global table (and
then have filtering), but I don't see it being that many routes when a /16 is
for a whole continent, which has 1 or 2 peering routers in this design. This
also avoids black holes caused by 44net directly connected peers being
filtered by sites that filter at less than a /24 block (don't laugh, I've seen
large companies filter at a /19)
Admittedly this is a very "back of a napkin" design, but it's a start. Thoughts?
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
Along those lines, Remi, F4ECW had an interesting idea to make PHP
interface for remote fldigi.
I took some his radio control code and put my receiver online.
http://kb9mwr.no-ip.org/control/
Another logical use of the 44 netspace would be for a VOIP ham thing
like IRLP. This would eliminate the need for port forwarding
---- Quote ----
Interoperability with the Internet, thanks to the BGP announcements
and not using 10/8, *and* at the same time, access to the same
services from ham radio networks which are not allowed to access the
Internet over ham radio due to local regulations. That'd be cool. Run
a nice web service having a net-44 address, but when the visitor comes
from within the amprnet with a net-44 address, allow extra features
like being able to key a transmitter.
- Hessu
On 7/16/13 4:17 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
> In addition to whatever its activities require, it costs around $500
> a year to just maintain a non-profit corp in California.
>
> Donations haven't kept up with that, much less to defray the initial
> startup costs. We have no money.
Why incorporate in Cali? Not to get political here, but it's the least
business friendly state in the union.
I have 3 LLC's in Florida, and spend less than 400 dollars to matain all 3
LLC's.
Cost to incorporate a non-profit is $70, which is about half of a non-profit.
I think status with the IRS which would make donations tax deducible is a
no-brainier.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
Guys
I am trying to create a resonable map of ampr ips that are in use in
Australia so when people request they canbe given ranges that are not being
used. If you have or no of a range of IP's that are being used downunder,
could you please let me know by emailing samantha(a)smellyblackdog.com.au
Regards
Sam
Amateur Radio Callsign: VK4FQ / VK4TTT
Owner: VK4RCN P25 Repeater Cairns
Sysop: APRS Cairns
Mobile: VK4FQ-9 (vhf) VK4FQ-15 (Hf)
Chris reports that he's repaired the portal allocations mechanism but
that some recent allocation requests were lost and will have to be resubmitted.
The cause was apparently an unexpected power failure in the data centre.
- Brian
----- Forwarded message from Chris <chris(a)g1fef.co.uk> -----
Looks like some records were corrupted, I've repaired the db by rolling it back, but that means the most recent transactions where lost, so recent allocation requests will have to be re-submitted.
Cheers,
Chris
----- End forwarded message -----
On 7/13/13 12:31 PM, Lin Holcomb wrote:
> My understanding is that there may be some rouge direct connected
> 44 address ranges out there too. This is from a friend at a national
> CATV/ISP provider.
> I don't remember the specifics but prior to the policy Change by AMPR
> regarding this allocation we found some of these in their AS. If memory
> serves some were in VK. This is some thing we really need to run down....
> With 16million addresses this is a hard task to police. I am guessing
> that ISPs have whole groups that just deal with rouge networks in their IP
> space. Just running a scan is not going to work as most ISPs will shut ya
> down if you tried to scan a whole class A. It really needs to be looked at
> in a AS. Not Brian's at UCSD as his will be correct.
Well anyone running BGP with a full feed on their router can see what ASN's
announce any netblock.
The bigger question I see is how do you reliably link all of 44/8 so everyone
can see everyone else.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
