I know a couple of groups now have proper reverse delegation of DNS for their subnets… Wondering who to drop a line to so I can get 44.103.0.0/19 delegated to a.ns.mi6wan.net and b.ns.mi6wan.net ?
Didn’t see it in the portal or wiki and my notes from a few months ago are foggy...
--
Fredric Moses - W8FSM - WQOG498
fred(a)moses.bz
All,
I've added a new tool that I'd like you to test. This web application
should provide the registration code required by APRS software suites.
In order to use it, you must browse to:
http://kb3vwg-010.ampr.org/tools/aprscode
or
http://44.60.44.10/tools/aprscode
If you're on AMPRNet, you should be able to enter the callsign and look
up the registration code. If you access it from outside of AMPRNet, you
will be prompted for an access code (1234).
Please let me know how it works
73,
KB3VWG
Are we anywhere close to being able to support an RF-based mesh network?
Or is it just simplest to have backhaul to a single tunnel device?
I'm thinking the RF network side would be using OSLR or some other
routing protocol, providing it with the information it needs, but for
the tunnel announcing a single IP makes the most sense. Otherwise, the
large network would show up with multiple diverse routes, but may in
reality be partitioned.
--
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR
Disinformation Architect
First, Lynwood thanks for sharing PHP code snippet.
Does anyone know much about google maps?
More than 15 years ago a younger local ham friend of mine wrote some
web based interactive tools for wireless link planning.
Maybe you have run into them:
http://n9zia.ampr.org/
This isn't presently on 44-net. I have just been using the ampr dns
to give it a hostname that has been pointing to my home cable modem
for a long time now. They run horribly slow (same computer for 15
years and slow upload speed)
I'd love to see these tools freshened up a bit to use PHP, and
possibly integrate google maps. Neither the original author, Joe
N9ZIA or myself really have a lot of experience with either. But we
are both surprised someone hasn't already done this.
Just throwing the idea out there for anyone who would like a project,
the code is open under GPL. The tools help promote modern RF network
planning.
After a rewrite perhaps they could be hosted on a 44 IP, and put a
paypal please donate nag screen if you come in from a commercial IP.
The paypal proceeds can go to helping ARDC with Brian's ok.
Steve, KB9MWR
doing some testing here this morning and went to login to af6hf.ampr.org
and saw the following:
debian@arm:~$ telnet af6hf.ampr.org
Trying 92.242.140.21...
just curious what's going on here. can we now assign any ip addresses to
our delegated domain namespace? I had always thought that foo.ampr.org
would be placed in 44/8 ip space.
Eric
AF6EP
44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
> Subject:
> Re: [44net] VPN or Gatwaying without control of NAT router WAS: 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 118
> From:
> Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com>
> Date:
> 07/28/2014 06:16 AM
>
> To:
> AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
>
>
> thanks geoff. I did login and look it up, then sent it on. looks
> like this subnet will finally be coming online..... even if packets
> need to route via romania on their way here! those in the us, really
> ought pitch in and find some isp willing to bgp announce for us in
> exchange for a moderate fee for hosting a vpn concentrator for the
> announced subnets. with the low expected traffic usage it "shouldn't"
> be that costly to do. anyone know a friendly us based isp?
Please note that there is no relation whatsoever between announcing via BGP and
offering an OpenVPN or other VPN access instead of IPIP tunnels.
Those are two completely ortogonal subjects. It is possible to setup an OpenVPN
or other VPN access on a gateway that is connected to others via IPIP tunnels, that
is what I have now. And it is possible to have a BGP announced gateway that does
not offer OpenVPN. And it is possible to combine the two.
You can setup an OpenVPN access system that operates as a normal IPIP gateway
on any of the low-cost virtual servers that you can get everywhere today. No need
for ISP cooperation or BGP routing. Just get a Linux virtual server, install a couple
of packages, configure them, and there you go.
Rob
44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
> Subject:
> Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 117
> From:
> Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com>
> Date:
> 07/27/2014 06:49 AM
>
> To:
> AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
>
>
> Rob,
>
> for the specific situation I'm in we ought chat. I do eventually want
> to set up my own 44net vpn hub.... but for the moment it would work
> just fine to have an ip out of finland or elsewhere. now if someone
> wanted to setup a vpn server host for various yet to be routed subnets
> that would be even cooler..... but yes, let's chat. a vpn connection
> to you would be most welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eric
Eric,
My VPN server is only configured for Dutch IP adresses, as I have configured it in such a
way that it can use existing allocated net-44 addresses, for which I am the coordinator for
44.137.0.0/16, and I am setting up a server for this network to be announced on BGP.
That is not finished (waiting for permission from the ISP and then from ARDC), but it
already operates as a gateway. On that machine I installed the OpenVPN server.
So it only works for existing adresses in the 44.137.0.0/16 network, that are not within
a subnet registered at the portal.
However, others have taken a different approach, they allocate new addresses from a
special subnet. I think the Finnish server does this as well.
Best would be if someone nearer to you provides this service, as this yields much better
performance.
Rob
44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
> Subject:
> Re: [44net] getting a debian wheezy host connected to 44net
> From:
> Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com>
> Date:
> 07/26/2014 06:42 PM
>
> To:
> AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
>
>
> ok it seems everyone is missing the point of the question here. see
> my threaded comments below:
>
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Marius Petrescu<marius(a)yo2loj.ro> wrote:
>> >(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Eric,
>> >
>> >Actually you can use any stateful VPN tunnel: OpenVPN, PPtP, L2TP, SSTP etc.
>> >OpenVPN is kind of complicated to set up (certifcates and other details).
>> >
>> >The idea is to initiate the connection from the dynamic IP to a static IP,
>> >and reconnect on IP change from the new dynamc IP.
>> >
>> >I personally favor PPtP or L2TP (optional with MPPE encryption), since this
>> >protocol is supported by almost any OS (Windows, Mac, Linux) and is light on
>> >the processor.
>> >
> yes I get that the tunnel type is mostly irrelevant and I'm pretty
> agnostic as to it's type as hey I could tunnel over dns, http, or even
> icmp if I had to. The question is tunnel to where? If I had a box
> somewhere with a static endpoint / static ip address a big part of
> this question would not be being asked and yes, I'd use it as a vpn
> server - problem solved. at present, I do not have that luxury.
>
> is there no possible way to connect hosts to amprnet that are behind a
> nat firewall router that has a dynamic public ip without the use of a
> (my own) vpn server with a static ip placed elsewhere?
>
> Eric
>
It depends on where you are and what kind of address you want to have.
Here in the Netherlands I have just setup an OpenVPN server that can be used for this
for addresses within 44.137.0.0/16. Anyone with such an address can just mail me and I'll
send them a certificate and example config file.
I plan to enable PPTP, L2TP/IPsec and IPsec as well as demand arises.
There is an OpenVPN service in Finland as well, see http://wiki.ampr.org/index.php/AMPRNet_VPN
I think they are open for registration from anywhere (not just Finland).
Of course best is when you start a server in your own area.
Rob
