On 4/11/14, 11:32 AM, Bart Kus wrote:
> It allows our microwave network to remain connected to the rest of
> AMPRnet as long as we have at least 1 ISP that isn't dead. The
> microwave network peers with the Internet at 2 different points at
> present, but more points will come in the future. It's a robustness
> improvement in the face of partial failures, like in a natural disaster
> when an ISP's fiber gets torn or their building collapses.
So this is a hack to correct for the hack of AMPRnet IPIP tunnels. Argh, it
makes my head hurt.
If AMPRnet was treated like any other network on the internet, this problem
would go away. At worst anyone not redundantly connected to the global
internet would lose connectivity if their small gateway went down.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
As far as I know, because of routing restrictions on the amprgw network
connectivity, hosts on BGP-announced subnets of 44/8 will be unable
to communicate with hosts on tunnel-routed subnets of 44/8 unless the
BGP-announced subnet also runs a listed tunnel router gateway with a
non-44/8 gateway address.
This is because the building-level router one hop upstream from amprgw has
a fixed route directing all 44/8 traffic to amprgw. This building-level
router does not speak BGP and so cannot learn about BGP-announced subnets
of 44/8. This is a historical artifact; it predates the availability
of BGP-announced 44/8 subnets by many years.
We hope to change this topology in the future to connectivity with the
border router that DOES speak BGP, but indications are that that change
will not be able to be done soon.
In the meantime, gateway tunnel routers with a non-44 gateway address
(that's all of them, except HamWan's proposed gateway) are the workaround
to this restriction.
I'm sorry for this difficulty but it's what we're stuck with for now.
- Brian
Hi,
In trying to migrate HamWAN to IPIP anycast as discussed in a previous
thread. I have run across a problem at the very last step. The
relevant screenshot is at http://imgur.com/X2BfziT . Cannot attach the
PNG due to message size restrictions.
Basically, when I try to change the Gateway IP for our 44.24.240.0/20
subnet to be 44.24.221.1, I get the error message "Invalid gateway IP
address".
I'm sure this was intentionally coded at some point, but I believe this
to be a design error. Here's why:
1) 44.24.221.1 is outside the associated prefix list for this gateway
(44.24.240.0/20 only).
2) 44.24.221.0/24 will not be configured to have an IPIP gateway as it
is being announced directly on the Internet.
Given those two conditions, anyone with traffic for 44.24.240.0/20 can
send it via Internet or IPIP to 44.24.221.1. When sending to
44.24.221.1 (outer IPIP header dst-addr), there should be no conflicting
route and the default route should be taken, resulting in proper packet
delivery to HamWAN.
Can someone add this gateway manually and then fix the portal interface
problem?
Our tunnels are re-configured into the new desired state and awaiting
packets. :) We are presently in AMPR tunnel downtime mode until that
gateway is set + propagated.
Thanks!
--Bart
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
All,
I finished by volunteer stint at a youth robotics competition, so I
have been poking around the Wiki making some changes. Mainly I have
been adding some small pieces of content to eliminate the Wiki links
that go to empty pages, but I have also rearranged some of the content
on the main page.
If you run across any issues, please let me know.
I hope that is okay with everyone.
-Neil
--
Neil Johnson, N0SFH
http://erudicon.com
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.
> The key here is access to "Amateur Radio Frequencies", e.g. getting on the
> air / RF.
Well, you cannot possibly open the door to the Internet, then close it
again, or have half of it open and the other half closed, then change it
again tomorrow, or change it when someone gets upset - all you are going to
have is a 44net dominated by strong negative feelings and a whole lot of
arguing - probably exactly what you have already.
The decision has been made already to continue with an amateur PUBLIC
44net. If Members want to firewall off all incoming !44/8, then that is
their choice, and they should do that, and no one should comment on their
choice, and should certainly not be disparaging about it. Same rule applies
to all others doing as they choose as well.
Let's fix this wiki and get the documentation sorted.
Steve
ZL1BHD
On 4/4/14, 3:13 PM, Steve Wright wrote:
> This is going to go nowhere. Go play with your netrom nodes and have fun
> pinging each other at 1200baud, and keep being hostile to wireless ISPs who
> just offered the use of tens of thousands of $$ worth of outdoor 100mbit
> gear for no charge.
TBH, 99% of WISP's run gear in the 100's of dollars range, it's not
professional or even ham radio grade IMO. I've seen some real poor
installations and even seen them kicked off sites. We should strive to be
better than the average WISP.
I'd say there is not implied guarantee that some one using a 44/8 IP is going
to be a licensed ham radio operator. You as a control operator of the station
are ultimately responsible for the transmissions.
I don't get to concerned about it personally. I cannot police 100% of the
traffic transiting my nodes, and I don't think anyone can.
73's
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
> Hmm, even here you may notice several people with quite networking
> experience wanted to get involved but when they asked for help because
> it is not that easy to understand how 44net works as there is tremendous
> lack of information, they got pretty rude replies, like, they should
> write documentation themselves.
>
> It's like there is some kind of elitism. If you are not involved in
> development since mid 70's, and if you actually need to read
> documentation, then you are not in a game.
Yup, exactly.
> I'd like to grant access to Amateur Radio frequencies if the source ip
> is within 44.0.0.0/8. I assume that only radio amateurs are "behind"
> net44 addresses.
You see, but that is completely useless, because you just firewalled the
entire internet.
This is going to go nowhere. Go play with your netrom nodes and have fun
pinging each other at 1200baud, and keep being hostile to wireless ISPs who
just offered the use of tens of thousands of $$ worth of outdoor 100mbit
gear for no charge.
Think about it.
S