In another thread, it was said:
>> everyone in the mesh ought to be running a dynamic routing protocol thus
>> increasing redundancy and reliability.
>This is a good idea. I'm not up on the latest RFCs concerning routing in
>tunneled (VPN, GRE, etc) networks. Do you have a recommendation?
I am not an expert to answer this question, but I have stumbled on an
emerging method for routing that has remarkable similarities to
threads here. Along with the connections/associations I list below, it
is experimental communications, and I believe we (Hams) have something
to contribute.
RFC 6830, LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol - see
[http://www.lisp4.net/] ) decouples Location from unique IDentifier in
IP addressing. I first saw the need for this concept with APRS
messaging, but that is for another group.
"LISP follows a network-based map-and-encapsulate scheme ... both
identifiers and locators can be IP addresses or arbitrary elements
like a set of GPS coordinates or a Mac address." {or call sign?}
The LISP Papers at [http://blog.pattincon.com/lisp-papers/] seems to
be a good place for me to start to understand the application of this
protocol.
It is implemented in recent versions of Cisco IOS/NX-OS (out of my
reach at this time) and LISPmob (Mobile Node) at [http://lispmob.org/]
runs on OpenWRT/Linux.
I am working on experimenting with something from here.
Peace, Jim A. KB3TBX
--- Quote ---
For some reason, I cannot get it to receive the 44.0.0.1 -> 224.0.0.9
transmissions.
The socket is listening on port 520, when I trace tunl0 I see the
packets arriving
every 5 minutes, but the rip44d (running with -v) remains absolutely silent.
Any idea what that can be?
------
The first thing that comes to mind is something wrong with the tunl0 netmask.
Pedja,
If I add the encap.txt file you provided (realizing is is truncated..) and
adding it to my files list in my router, and running the txt file you
provided as a scipt in my MT, it does nothing. Is this the intended method
of your files?
i see the script count increment, but I don't see any routes get added. In
the first line of the script file, I edited the IP Address to be my local
(inside address). Should it be the inside address, my outside WAN address
or my AMPR address?
Thanks for clarifying, and great job, if this works!
--
Rod Ekholm
KC7AAD
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM, David Ranch <amprgw(a)trinnet.net> wrote:
> Going to www.teqsys.net and looking at the Orange tab, there is the callsign
> G7UOD for "Hugh Golding". There is an email address for him on QRZ too.
I sent an email to Hugh, he confirmed he has removed his RIP transmit
configuration now, and teqsys.net should not be sending those packets
any more.
- Hessu
Same here, all dressed up with nowhere to go!
I maintained 6 radio ports for quite a long time utilizing HF/VHF/UHF 1200/9600/PACTOR3, even satellite. No users. No more fun.
I eventually reinvested that money in other areas of the hobby.
Judging by the replies so far I think it's fairly safe to say there is little to no tcp/ip over radio in use anymore.
Paul Delaney - K6HR
http://k6hr.dyndns.org:8080
On 08/21/13, JJ wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On 13-08-21 11:19 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
>
> Is anyone actually using the network over radio at this point?
> Could you supply some details?
>
I have 4 RF ports, 2 hf, 2 vhf, all ip capable, but there's no-one in my
area to route to over the air...and forget trying tcipip @ 300 baud hf,
lol, that wud be painful...but I cud turn the beam and route to ka0mos
over vhf...
prolly not very helpful, but yes, I use/would use ip over RF, I have b4,
and I will again!
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44nethttp://www.ampr.org/donate.html
------ Quote ------
Is anyone actually using the network over radio at this point?
Could you supply some details?
We had been using the 44 net space and TCP/IP over radio (1200/9600)
for many years here in Wisconsin.
We even ran Webservers on those links. This made the 1999 CQ and
CQ-VHF magazine.
Our original packet organization's (WAPR) webpage was accessible via radio.
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/wapr/
Now most of the 1200 baud portions of the network are dead, and only a
few have moved on to 802.11 options.
I and four others in Green Bay have been mostly doing remote backups
using rsync over 802.11 for several years now. A few years back I ran
a PBX with a 802.11 trunk to my friends house.
Hello Brian et al;
> I'm in the process of preparing a new document on the AMPRNet.
> I'd like to include a section on the radio-based portions of the
> network.
>
> Is anyone actually using the network over radio at this point?
> Could you supply some details?
You may be interested in this link:
http://bythebays.net/neflexnet/howtotcp.htm
It's a document I drafted with k2mf a few years back.
********************** 73 de Brian N1URO **********************
Spam {n}: an entity using smtp via internet to force
humans to revert back to paper, pencil, and postage
for mail communications.
>> Well seems every platform is a bit different. The ip route command
>> works a bit different from Debian to Redhat. Here are the errors when
>> I tried to run rip44d on CentOS platform:
>>
>> route del failed: 'LANG=C /sbin/ip route del 44.183.0.0/255.255.0.0':
>> Error: an
>> inet prefix is expected rather than "44.183.0.0/255.255.0.0".
>
>This looks really odd. rip44d runs ip route commands with a prefix
>length, not a netmask. Was that with a current, unmodified version of
>rip44d (https://raw.github.com/hessu/rip44d/master/rip44d) ?
>
>- Hessu
That was an older version. I just tried it again, using CentOS 5.5
and it works as expected. Which is great
Hi all,
Is anyone using a DD-WRT router (I use a TL-WR1043ND with DD-WRT) for
his/her AMPRnet GATEWAY 44.154.0.1?
I have the following problem here. I have included support in my
DD-WRT Router's IPTABLES for IPIP (IP Protocol 4) with the command
"iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p 4 -j DNAT --to 192.168.250.66" in
it's Firewall, but this does not seem to work.
I wonder if I need to also port forward UDP port 520 to the same IP,
but I don't think so because I think rip44d uses UDP port 520 for
outgoing packets only.
When I put my GATEWAY's ethernet IP (192.168.250.66) in DMZ then
rip44d works fine, but then my AMPRnet GATEWAY is really exposed and I
need to write an extensive IPTABLES SCRIPT.
Is there a way for rip44d to work behind NAT?
Is my "iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p 4 -j DNAT --to 192.168.250.66"
command enough for my DD-WRT or am I wrong?
Could anyone help please?
73 de Demetre SV1UY
IP coordinator for AMPRnet in Greece
e-mail demetre.sv1uy(a)gmail.com
