> If this is, " a hack to backbone a semi-private network on top of the
> public internet" then why do we need 44/8? Please explain why 10/8 would
> not work just as well?
>
>[....] if it's not going to be routable then why do we need 44/8? use
> RFC1918 space and give 44/8 back. [...] We could attract many
> into this hobby if we'd simply offer to be the teachers of the IP
> networking craft using standards based methods used by everyone else
across
> the internet.
>
PRECISELY.
Can we please make a decision on this and move ahead?
I'd like to know, one way or the other, because I sure aint interested in
all this private 44net stuff..
Is 44net routable or private?
Steve
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
I'm trying to decide how to write a "How To" guide for setting up a
Linux Gateway for the Wiki.
I'm planning on basing it on the excellent guide found here (with Credit):
http://marc.storck.lu/blog/2013/08/howto-setup-an-amprnet-gateway-on-linux/
But I'm wondering what level of Linux Administration and IP Networking
Expertise I should assume.
If I assume zero, it's going to be a looong guide, probably too long.
Below is a link to the diagram I was planning to base the guide off of.
AMPRNet Gateway Diagram -
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1xAcMbROBpbuRFY0tVf1VdBrAP0ZQwTsE6Eqokn2…
Comments welcome.
Thanks
-Neil
Greetings;
I've noticed recently after doing a package update on the iproute
packages I can no longer configure my tunnel interface tunl0. Mainly I'm
trying to reset the ttl to 64 for traceroute to properly work.
Everything I've searched comes up empty. Here's what I see:
root@gw:/usr/local/bin# iptunnel show
tunl0: ip/ip remote any local any ttl inherit nopmtudisc
root@gw:/usr/local/bin# ifconfig tunl0
tunl0 Link encap:IPIP Tunnel HWaddr
inet addr:44.88.0.1 Mask:255.255.255.255
UP RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:0 Metric:1
ttl is stuck on inherit and MTU autoconfigs to 0. This I know is set by
nopmtudisc however if I try to adjust things:
root@gw:/usr/local/bin# ip tunnel change tunl0 ttl 64
ttl != 0 and noptmudisc are incompatible
root@gw:/usr/local/bin# ip tunnel change pmtudisc mode ipip
add tunnel tunl0 failed: No such file or directory
Why would it try to ADD? the command is CHANGE.
Has anyone else suffered this before and if so what was the fix?
Thanks in advance.
--
73 de Brian Rogers - N1URO
email: <n1uro(a)n1uro.ampr.org>
Web: http://www.n1uro.net/
Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/
Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org
Linux Amateur Radio Services
axMail-Fax & URONode
AmprNet coordinator for:
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, and Vermont.
On 3/31/14, 4:04 PM, Steve Wright wrote:
> Can we please make a decision on this and move ahead?
>
> I'd like to know, one way or the other, because I sure aint interested in
> all this private 44net stuff..
>
> Is 44net routable or private?
I vote routeable. My /24 is announced, can't say I really work that hard to
keep my tunnels updated.
I use my space to provide services to amateur radio and the internet. I just
lit up an Allstar RTCM node and asterisk server for simulcast recently.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
If we give 44/8 back, then those of us routing 44 traffic over RF to other
44 stations get screwed, now don't we.
:/
44/8 is for amateur radio only. There are plenty of us using it.
I have ports to both other 44 stations, as well as BPQ stations that can't
use it.
Beside, no one is mandating any station use it in their configurations.
The beauty of *you* not wanting to use it is..... You don't have to.
The beauty of *me* wanting to use it is.... I get to.
Bill
KG6BAJ
At 01:04 PM 03/31/14, you wrote:
>(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>_______________________________________________
> > If this is, " a hack to backbone a semi-private network on top of the
> > public internet" then why do we need 44/8? Please explain why 10/8 would
> > not work just as well?
> >
> >[....] if it's not going to be routable then why do we need 44/8? use
> > RFC1918 space and give 44/8 back. [...] We could attract many
> > into this hobby if we'd simply offer to be the teachers of the IP
> > networking craft using standards based methods used by everyone else
>across
> > the internet.
> >
>
>PRECISELY.
>
>Can we please make a decision on this and move ahead?
>
>I'd like to know, one way or the other, because I sure aint interested in
>all this private 44net stuff..
>
>Is 44net routable or private?
>
>
>
>Steve
>
Screenshot
This network (44.24.240.0/20) is available via both 209.189.196.68 and
198.178.136.80. However, I'm unable to list more than one point of
contact. I realize this was probably a design decision at some point,
but it doesn't seem like a good idea from a redundancy perspective.
--Bart
PS: If you're wondering why the image looks like crap, it's to satisfy
the puny 32kB message size limit of the list.
I've been told that one can use iptables (presumably the mangle table) to
mark packets inbound on different interfaces and then use iproute2 to send
the responses back out the same interface. Is anyone doing this and, if so,
would you be willing to share how you do that?
Thanks,
Michael
N6MEF
It would seem to me that while due to the fact we are tunneling most
everything we may have a logical full mesh but far from a physical full
mesh. What does a tunneled logical full mesh really accomplish for us
other than making things all the more complicated? Wouldn't traditional
peering and routing done "the normal way" be much easier? I can see a
valid place for nailing up vpn links and various tunnels, i.e. last mile
access and tying islands together though something other than IPIP with
links negotiated on a peering basis as needed, but what does a full logical
mesh of tunnels give us? It seems that since it's built of tunnels and
thus virtual rather than physical we just unnecessarily complicate the mess
wherein the tunneled traffic and the tunnels themselves end up taking
multiple and somewhat changing hops to get from one end to another. IP was
designed such that I could hand a packet off and basically go, "ok, now
it's your problem to deliver it (on a best effort basis)", thus I shouldn't
need to know every conceivable route to every conceivable endpoint. What
prevents us from using it that way?
Eric
AF6EP
> I've created a basic tutorial on the wiki for setting up a Ubuntu
> Server gateway.
>
Good work!
I'd be keen to help with a wiki page on a Mikrotik connection example. I
have hardware installed, and also have Kamikazi running on MetaROUTER if
anyone wants to fiddle with it.
Steve
--
Meshnetworks - Rangitaiki Plains Rural Broadband Internet Providers
+64 21 040 5067
