It appears to work.
You mentioned you weren't intending to provide access to the code, but
how about the code that looks at the source IP / password requirement
part?
I'm one of those guys who still hasn't fully wrapped their head around
PHP yet, so I'd like to see how you did that part.
On that topic, maybe we should have a place/repository on the amprnet
to put ham specific software.
A while back I posted a link to a web based rig control application I
was running. It uses hamlib for backend and php for a front end.
Here is more info:
http://kb9mwr.blogspot.com/2013/04/raspberry-pi-web-based-rig-control.html
As for the ARDC director position discussions, my thought is we need
more people working on finishing the portal first. I am sure Chris
would appreciate that.
> > The IP space is owned by
> >
> > Amateur Radio Digital Communications
> >
> > per the whois.
> >
> > ARIN requires a legal entity to exist in order to receive the IP space.
>
Actually it doesn't sound like it's "owned" by ardc at all. Why do you
state this to be so?
Your mention of your lawyers smacks of stand over tactics.
> 1. Minor: That everyone include his/her callsign as part of the
> message, either in the "From" line (my preference) or in the
signature.
> 2. Major: That messages with a subject line that includes the name of a
> digest, be blocked/rejected. This is not to be cruel or mean, but
> to insure that others (like me) actually read the message. I doubt
> that I'm the only one that refuses to read messages with a subject
> line that is a digest name.
No. No one is interested in your extra rules. Think up something actually
useful and interesting, and contribute that.
Regarding the 44/8 and IANA:
Please don't "shake the hornets' nest," by asking IANA or ARIN. While IANA issued the /8 when it ran "Internet Registry," it is actually referenced in RFCs. It is a technical fixture of the "DARPA Internet" that the 44/8 addresses are AMPRNET. The legal question of: "is an IP address property, and if so, do legacy IP holders have different property rights than those allocated from RIRs" is a DANGEROUS question to venture into having solved before IPv4 "goes the way" of thrift store dialup modems.
Why? Because of all those who still hold legacy allocations:
AMPRNet is the only one that is:
- non-commercial
- nonprofit
- not part of military-industrial complex
- not part of the big-pharmaceutical industry
- not governmental
- not part of big-telecom
- not part of the financial industry
- not part one the major corporations, nations or firms that help rebuild/establish/maintain the infrastructure of the globe during/after World War II
What /8 do you think they'll try to take first when the world's number resources approach 0.01 /8's remaining to allocate???
-KB3VWG
Hello,
I'd like to join the board of ARDC. Having studied the situation a bit,
it looks to me like ARDC is in a bad situation right now. Should Brian
get hit by a bus, the corporation will no longer have any directors or
officers. Its assets would then be disseminated by a court during the
dismantling of the corporation. This means the address space would be
given away to whoever the court decides, which could include ARIN for
re-purposing as commercial space.
I'm not 100% on this, since there is scant documentation on the heritage
of 44/8 and its present legal ownership status. I believe it's "legacy
space", but ARIN doesn't seem to agree: the netblock suffix does not end
with -Z. As "legacy space" there should be some chain of ownership
documented somewhere, and I'm just not finding it.
Having read the bylaws, I also haven't managed to find how I might go
about becoming elected. The processes for replacement and removal of
directors are defined (majority vote of board members), but I don't see
how elections to vacant positions are supposed to take place. I'd also
like to say that a board electing itself is not the best model of
governance for a non-profit corporation. Non-profits are supposed to
serve some need: in this case the needs of amateurs who wish to make use
of 44/8 space. I'd like to see a governance model where the users elect
the directors who best represent their needs. This is one crucial
governance change that I think absolutely needs to happen.
Aside from governance, there are several technical issues that I'd like
to see brought up to speed with modern standards, and published as part
of official interface specifications for AMPRnet. I don't want to get
too detailed in this email, but a top-level list of technical things I'd
push for as director includes:
1) Support for BGP
2) Support for IPsec(AH)
3) Support for anycasting
4) An improved gateway registration process with IP ownership verification
5) Support for DNS delegation
6) Support for DNSSEC signing
7) Deployment of multiple regional Internet gateways to remove the UCSD
single point of failure
8) Adoption of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol
9) Publication of official multi-platform software which simplifies the
AMPRnet user experience
I've experienced opposition on implementing points 3 and 5 so far, and
I'm reluctant to attempt any more of these agenda items without some
changes to how the organization makes decisions. There are no technical
blockers here, as all of these technologies I mentioned are widely used
on the Internet today. However, it's nearly impossible to achieve
technical leadership when decisions require universal consensus, and/or
the decision making process is undefined. AMPR needs more board members
who can push such technologies forward, and participate in the official
decision making process while relying on their deep technical expertise
to ensure their votes are sound.
In terms of my qualifications for board duty, I founded the HamWAN
organization in Washington which has deployed a regional microwave
network, uses AMPRnet IP space, and has based its standard designs on
the latest & greatest hardware and software has to offer.
Professionally, I'd been running Internet services since 1996. Presently
I work on routing for a major cloud provider. I'd like to bring the
same kind of innovation to AMPRnet as I did with HamWAN. On the
governance standpoint, I drafted the HamWAN bylaws in very intentional
ways. Ways that empower the volunteers who are doing the active work
that contributes to progress. Governance overhead is minimal so
everyone can just mostly focus on the problems at hand.
So, what are the next steps here?
--Bart
1. Minor: That everyone include his/her callsign as part of the
message, either in the "From" line (my preference) or in the signature.
2. Major: That messages with a subject line that includes the name of a
digest, be blocked/rejected. This is not to be cruel or mean, but
to insure that others (like me) actually read the message. I doubt
that I'm the only one that refuses to read messages with a subject
line that is a digest name.
44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
> Subject:
> Re: [44net] Running for ARDC director position
> From:
> "." <lleachii(a)aol.com>
> Date:
> 04/18/2014 04:59 PM
>
> To:
> 44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
>
>
> I keep a little copy/paste history and info athttp://kb3vwg-010.ampr.org but I'm definitely not the AMPR historian, by experience.
I checked there and I read:
There are two negative aspects I can think of:
- Speed: Even an IP frame from one host in Germany to another has to go via ucsd.edu . That way it has to cross the Atlantic two times.
That is not correct. The tunnel mesh does not work like that.
Traffic between 44net hosts flows directly from gateway to gateway in an IPIP tunnel between them. amprgw is not involved
in that at all. Only traffic from outside to inside 44net is via amprgw, and there are now other gateways as
well that serve smaller subnets (e.g. in Belgium and Germany). All gateways have IPIP tunnels to all other gateways,
and the traffic flows according to the shortest route via internet between the gateways.
Rob
44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
> Subject:
> Re: [44net] Running for ARDC director position
> From:
> YT9TP Pedja <yt9tp(a)uzice.net>
> Date:
> 04/18/2014 12:38 PM
>
> To:
> AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
>
>
>
> This is very strange approach that I, frankly met nowhere else in ham world but here.
>
> I participated in number of noncommercial and hobby projects and the one of the main goals I always had was to document things to make it easier for people to learn, get involved and contribute.
IMHO there is more than enough documentation around for people to learn, get involved and contribute.
It is only for the types that want to know the reason for each and every bit that there may be a lack of documentation.
It is my opinion that when they really need the detailed specification they claim is not available, they should write
that themselves asking for input here on the mailinglist. But they rather prefer slashing everything that is
there and claiming that it is all inferior.
There really is not much to it, it is simply a meshed IPIP tunnel network with a gateway to the outside internet,
and everyone with basic understanding of routing should be able to comprehend how it works.
The software it is running on has changed over time so directions on how to get it working have to evolve
as well. I have posted simple scripts for Linux on this list and I don't see what is wrong with them.
Of course they are not "specification and documentation" but hey, there are only some 10 shell commands to it.
Rob
Tom,
If I understand you correctly, even if the portal allowed you to enter a 44 address as an IPIP endpoint, my 44GW (and many others) would be able to send traffic to it.
Since I wrote a script that quite a few people with Ubuntu Linux Gateways use (which was designed to closely mimic AMPRGW's behavior), here is what would occur (I cannot confirm this for other gateways using different OSes or scripts):
see:
http://kb3vwg-013.ampr.org/startampr
- the gateways using the KB3VWG Linux script are set to use a custom routing table if the SRC or DST address is 44.0.0.0/8
- the rip44 then adds all 44 routes to the 44 routing table
- so, as you wish
a.) rip44 would add your tunneled subnet (44.24.240.0/20) to routing table 44 with an endpoint address as 44.24.221.1
b.) a host in my subnet sends your subnet a packet and is received by my router
c.) it looks up the endpoint destination on table 44 and finds that it's 44.24.221.1
d.) my router will look in the routing table for 44.24.221.1 finds
**44.24.221.1 via 169.228.66.251 dev tunl0**
*****which would be **INVALID*****
e.) **INVALID***My GW sends an encapsulated packet to AMPRGW, and it's received on it's WAN interface. ***AMPRGW should not receive encapsulated packets from 44 hosts destined to 44 hosts*** Routing loops can occur.
- there have been IPIP tunnels in the past with 44 addresses, they were considered invalid configurations. To the Internet, 44 net is a flat /8 network and all subnets must be reachable at a non-44 address; which leads me to my last point
- I'm not sure why you keep insisting that AMPR routing is "broken" or has "funky 44net issues," you are requesting something that was not intended in the design, as was mentioned before tunnels msut be reachable with non-44 address, BGP routed subnets must still maintain a IPIP GW.
- This same topic was presented in April 2012, check the archive "
***"This will also means that any Operator that wishes to BGP should also consider also running the AMPR standard rip44d on the same device, if the intention is to make all 44/8 addresses equally reachable from any PoP, eventually, as is the intend purpose of BGP."***
- it was my intention update the script to include a block of IPENCAP from 44.0.0.0/8 SRC addresses...until I read your posts today
73,
Lynwood
KB3VWG
Tom wrote:
>Forget AMPRGW. I understand there is a routing issue at UCSD that
>breaks 44net routing for AMPRGW. But I'm not asking about AMPRGW! I'm
>asking about routing from all the IPIP gateways, none of which have
>44net endpoints at the moment.
>
>Since none of the current IPIP gateways have 44net endpoints, you
>cannot say with certainty that it won't work until the portal lets us
>try it.
>
>Tom KD7LXL
Charles
There's a deeper issue than just signing the RSA. At this point, it's a big legal conundrum if the RIRs have control over those who've never signed an RSA. For all intents...some legacy IP networks "OWN" their allocation. No court has ever decided (or been asked to decide) that question.
AMPR obtained their allocation from IANA before ARIN or the other RIRs even existed. The allocation was issued in an RFC named Assigned Numbers in 1991.
-KB3VWG
"." <lleachii(a)aol.com> wrote:
>Should be:
>
>http://wiki.ampr.org
