All,
I have worked on a updated version 2.0 RC3 of the STARTAMPR script. I've
also included more detailed instructions in the STARTAMPR file, as well
as a README. Original versions of the script remain compatible and can
continue to run on AMPRNet devices.
Also, for those wanting to reload the routing table on boot, I've
created a new script called BACKUP_AMPR.
Features of BACKUP_AMPR:
- creates an hourly output of "ip route get table 44" - table44_bak
- creates an hourly executable script to re-add those routes -
restore44sh
New in STARTAMRPR v2.0 RC3:
- DYNAMIC GATEWAY IP SUPPORT, proper configuration of Local Subnets
will end need to exclude your subnet using rip44d -a switch
- Routing tables and rules used to provide default routes and
blackholes independently for each subnet
- SECURITY FIX, packets for destinations not listed in TABLE 44 are
blackholed
- Examples of connecting to Gateways behind 44.0.0.0/s BGPed subnets
The files and README are located here for those on AMPRNet:
http://44.60.44.10/amprnet_docs/start_ampr_version2
73,
- Lynwood
KB3VWG
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
Dear colleagues!
From the information on the site wiki.ampr.org, implies that the
construction of the AMPR-Net node require support of protocol RIPv2.
At the same time, from the same source, it follows that the standard
systems with support RIPv2 are not suitable for this case.
From this we can conclude that RIPv2 used in an unusual way.
*Where can I get an introduction to this non-standard system that allows
to understand the technical sense?*
Looking archive mailing list, I received some fragmentary information.
I realized that RIP is not used to compare alternative routes for
efficiency, but for accounting for the dynamic addresses.
However, all the circumstances I not grasped.
I think that every first administrator, thinking through the design of
the node, asks this question. And surely, somewhere there must be a
document drawn up for those interested.
I was very surprised, when not to find the answer to this question in
the FAQ.
If he's still there, and I was looking bad, forgive me, and specify its
location.
If not - please help me and tell me about this non-standart solution.
Advance very grateful.
--
73! Yours faithfully,
Rihard RU3DSH.
> Subject:
> Re: [44net] ENCAP ro BGP
> From:
> Steve L <kb9mwr(a)gmail.com>
> Date:
> 08/19/2015 05:31 AM
>
> To:
> "44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
>
>
> Brian Kantor,
>
> Concerning hosts with no DNS entries can only use the IPIP mesh system.
>
> Couldn't this be tweaked at UCSD to allow only 44net traffic for hosts
> with no DNS entries? Thus letting BGP'd 44 hosts be able to
> communicate with IPIP 44 hosts regardless of DNS entries?
What would be the advantage?
Why not just register a DNS entry for any address you want to use?
In fact, I constructed the same filter as UCSD has in our gateway (which is BGP routed),
just to cut out most of the crap before it enters the radio network. Anyone who wants to
use an address can always have it registered.
Rob
Brian Kantor,
Concerning hosts with no DNS entries can only use the IPIP mesh system.
Couldn't this be tweaked at UCSD to allow only 44net traffic for hosts
with no DNS entries? Thus letting BGP'd 44 hosts be able to
communicate with IPIP 44 hosts regardless of DNS entries?
And of course if there is a DNS entry then (like now) allow
general/all inbound traffic.
Just a thought, not sure if it raises any other issues.
Steve, KB9MWR
marius at yo2loj.ro wrote:
>John,
>
>Yes, you should be able to send encapsulated data via amprgw and get the
>correct replies, but only for specific BGP announced and registered
>subnets.
>
>Arbitrary 44net targets not in those BGP announced networks are NOT
>forwarded via amprgw, and only DNS registered hosts will be able to use
>the gateway (as you correctly assume).
>
>Hosts with no DNS entries can only use the IPIP mesh system, since there
>is usually no check for that criteria on the gateways, and any subnet
>match is accepted.
>
>Marius, YO2LOJ
Bill,
I don't know what Lynwood has, but as a winter project I was going to
attempt the same thing on a Netgear WNR3500Lv2 running OpenWRT.
It too has: 5 GigE Ports, and a USB 2.0 Port
128 MB NAND flash and 128 MB RAM
Steve, KB9MWR
Also,
I forgot one step
- I created a bridge interface between tunl0 and a new VLAN, I named it
'amprnet'. I assigned the bridge 44.60.44.1.
- Lynwood
KB3VWG
Dani,
That is EXACTLY what I'm seeking...!
Has anyone compiled ampr-ripd v1.13 for MIPS 74Kc - Linux?
- Lynwood
KB3VWG
On 08/13/2015 03:00 PM, 44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
> My router happens to be PPC instead of the more common MIPS. If your
> router is also PPC by chance, then I can send you the ampr-ripd binary
> to save you the process of cross-compiling.
