44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

2 participants
3170 discussions

Fwd: [ARDC:44Net] Your message to 44net@mailman.ampr.org awaits moderator approval

by Charles J. Hargrove

I know that the administrators and staff are watching this list, so I am posting this here on behalf of all those who are having issues with the list. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [ARDC:44Net] Your message to 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org awaits moderator approval Resent-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 09:08:36 -0700 Resent-From: nc8q-aredn(a)gelm.net Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 12:08:26 -0400 From: Chuck Gelm <nc8q-aredn(a)gelm.net> Reply-To: 44net(a)ardc.groups.io To: 44net(a)ardc.groups.io On 5/14/24 11:57, 44net-bounces(a)mailman.ampr.org wrote: > Your mail to '44net(a)mailman.ampr.org' with the subject > > https://portal.ampr.org/home > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The message is being held because: > > The message is not from a list member > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > notification of the moderator's decision. Anyone: I receive email from 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org. Why cannot I post mail to 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org? How is it possible to receive mail from the list and not be a member? Chuck -- Charles J. Hargrove - N2NOV NYC-ARECS/RACES Citywide Radio Officer/Skywarn Coord. NYC-ARECS/RACES Nets 441.100/136.5 PL ARnewsline Broadcast Mon. @ 8:00PM NYC-ARECS Weekly Net Mon. @ 8:30PM http://www.nyc-arecs.org NY-NBEMS Net Saturdays @ 10AM & USeast-NBEMS Net Wednesdays @ 7PM on 7.036 Mhz USB (alt 3.536)/1500 hz waterfall spot; MFSK-16 or 32 "Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders." - Ronald Reagan "The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus "Molann an obair an fear" - Irish Saying (The work praises the man.) "No matter how big and powerful government gets, and the many services it provides, it can never take the place of volunteers." - Ronald Reagan

7 months, 1 week

Postal address verification

by femsci

Hi, Several weeks ago I requested postal address verification via the new portal, however it is still set as new (unassigned). Is there some expected time-span for assignment? I couldn't really find more info on that on this list, so I decided to start this thread. Thanks, ~ SP6KEK

7 months, 1 week

Re: Postal address verification

by lleachii＠aol.com

For years, I usually make a DNS request to my coordinator and CC Chris. It takes less than 1 hours. I believe I've been waiting 3 days on 20+ tickets in the new Portal.I should note, I haven't been able to request the DNS changes - because the records are currently in an "unclaimed" status and not assigned to my call. I'm still waiting to "claim" them.Since Chirs and my coordinator have since responded to me here and off-reflector, who should I be contacting regarding tickets in the Portal?Again, I don't wish to seem impatient or entitled - especially given I now realize that others have been waiting months.Thanks and 73,LynwoodKB3VWG -------- Original message --------From: Jim Kutsch KY2D via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> Date: 5/12/24 10:50 (GMT-05:00) To: '44Net general discussion' <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> Subject: [44net] Re: Postal address verification Unless Maine is an exception, I’m in the U.S. and my address verification request has been pending since April 12. No postcard received yet. . 73 Jim KY2D From: Dave Gingrich via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 9:59To: 44Net general discussion <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org>Subject: [44net] Re: Postal address verification It is much easier for the team to verify callsigns and addresses for U.S. domestic people. For some non-US locations it is nearly impossible. Tickets and any associated documents are completely deleted when they are acted upon. The team is very paranoid of leaving any personally identifiable information laying around in a database somewhere. — Dave K9DC, K9IP On May 12, 2024, at 08:58, Cara Salter via 44net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: On 5/12/24 08:03, femsci via 44net wrote:Several weeks ago I requested postal address verification via the new portal, however it is still set as new (unassigned).Is there some expected time-span for assignment?I couldn't really find more info on that on this list, so I decided to start this thread.Interesting -- my address verification ticket was approved (from what I can tell) on the same day.Slight tangent -- is there a way to view resolved tickets? When I go to Tickets -> View My Tickets there's nothing listed.73,Cara KC1KZT

7 months, 1 week

Re: AMPR Portal Cut-over 1 Month Later

by f5pbg＠free.fr

Le 05/05/2024 à 11:28, Rob PE1CHL via 44net a écrit : > I am disappointed that the current system is focused on a completely different > use-case than we have here I quite agree. For subnet 44.151 (France), I have IP creation requests pending and I still don't know if it's possible. For BGP France requests, I don't even know where the BGP France IPs are since they're no longer in 44.151. I guess we'll have to wait, so I'll wait. That's all I can do. 😉 What would be a step forward is if coadmins could themselves create requestor IPs and manage their associate dns/reverse dns. Best regards, Ludovic - F5PBG

7 months, 2 weeks

ns.ardc.org access

by lleachii＠aol.com

Does ns.ardc.org have an access policy restricting traffic to only IPs with a DNS entry (i.e. Intra-AMPRNet only)? That differs from what I've been told, so I wish ask. I'm having a difficult time with one of my valid AMPRNet IPs and have been struggling for days. I only have success with IPS having DNS entries. 73, LynwoodKB3VWG

7 months, 2 weeks

Portal Unassigned Tickets

by lleachii＠aol.com

All, I have 22 "unassigned" tickets in the Portal. I assume these have tasks I usually emailed my coordinator about. how do they get resolved? I don't want to sound "entitled" - I just don't understand what's occurring-since I've been responded to and assumed over 1 year notice (I've been told ARDC had 2 year notice). I noted I'd have a DNS matter soon and and as understand coordinators don't know what to do. Forgive me if this is the wrong channel to communicate, but I've noted this before publicly and privately with no response. Also, my trust, IPv4 and IPv6 request trust level are incorrect. Thanks and 73, KB3VWG

7 months, 2 weeks

UCSD gateway not responding after router reboot?

by Dan Cross

I rebooted my AMPRNet router after an upgrade earlier today, and now IPENCAP traffic doesn't seem to be flowing through the UCSD gateway. I wonder if this is expected behavior? I've verified that all interfaces on the router are working as expected: I can ping the _external_ address of the UCSD gateway from my router's external interface: ``` marconi# ping -V 23 -I 23.30.150.141 169.228.34.84 PING 169.228.34.84 (169.228.34.84): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 169.228.34.84: icmp_seq=0 ttl=48 time=86.937 ms 64 bytes from 169.228.34.84: icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=85.409 ms 64 bytes from 169.228.34.84: icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=90.166 ms 64 bytes from 169.228.34.84: icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=90.180 ms 64 bytes from 169.228.34.84: icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=82.058 ms 64 bytes from 169.228.34.84: icmp_seq=5 ttl=48 time=83.595 ms ^C --- 169.228.34.84 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 82.058/86.391/90.180/3.067 ms marconi# ``` But suppose I try to `ping` an external IPv4 address from a machine inside of my subnet. Then those messages seem to be dropped. E.g., dumping on the encap interface: ``` tcpdump: listening on gif1, link-type LOOP 15:51:46.955189 44.44.48.29 > 142.250.80.4: icmp: echo request (id:cf3d seq:507) [icmp cksum ok] (ttl 254, id 62634, len 84) 15:51:46.975585 44.44.48.29.34992 > 152.70.159.102.123: [udp sum ok] v4 client strat 0 poll 0 prec 0 dist 0.000000 disp 0.000000 ref (unspec)(a)0.000000000 orig 0.000000000 rec -0.000000000 xmt -501608111.378157913 [tos 0x10] (ttl 63, id 42418, len 76) 15:51:47.955108 44.44.48.29 > 142.250.80.4: icmp: echo request (id:cf3d seq:508) [icmp cksum ok] (ttl 254, id 6160, len 84) 15:51:48.953556 44.44.48.29 > 142.250.80.4: icmp: echo request (id:cf3d seq:509) [icmp cksum ok] (ttl 254, id 5705, len 84) 15:51:49.955095 44.44.48.29 > 142.250.80.4: icmp: echo request (id:cf3d seq:510) [icmp cksum ok] (ttl 254, id 38617, len 84) 15:51:50.955135 44.44.48.29 > 142.250.80.4: icmp: echo request (id:cf3d seq:511) [icmp cksum ok] (ttl 254, id 13652, len 84) 15:51:51.953550 44.44.48.29 > 142.250.80.4: icmp: echo request (id:cf3d seq:512) [icmp cksum ok] (ttl 254, id 15767, len 84) ^C 8 packets received by filter 0 packets dropped by kernel ``` (Note: the UDP packet is just an NTP request on the machine that happens to be running `ping`, but it's unrelated.) I can see that such packets are being routed out of my external interface, while properly encapsulated. e.g., ``` tcpdump: listening on cnmac1, link-type EN10MB 15:52:14.955137 23.30.150.141 > 169.228.34.84: 44.44.48.29 > 142.250.80.4: icmp: echo request (id:cf3d seq:535) (ttl 254, id 35282, len 84) (ttl 64, id 61599, len 104) 15:52:15.335038 35.203.211.24.57286 > 23.30.150.141.999: S [tcp sum ok] 4102707815:4102707815(0) win 65535 <mss 1460> [tos 0x20] (ttl 56, id 54321, len 44) 15:52:15.335165 23.30.150.141.999 > 35.203.211.24.57286: R [bad tcp cksum a4a9! -> d8a0] 0:0(0) ack 4102707816 win 0 (DF) [tos 0x10] (ttl 64, id 61784, len 40) 15:52:15.955143 23.30.150.141 > 169.228.34.84: 44.44.48.29 > 142.250.80.4: icmp: echo request (id:cf3d seq:536) (ttl 254, id 27600, len 84) (ttl 64, id 37135, len 104) 15:52:16.955121 23.30.150.141 > 169.228.34.84: 44.44.48.29 > 142.250.80.4: icmp: echo request (id:cf3d seq:537) (ttl 254, id 62216, len 84) (ttl 64, id 5987, len 104) 15:52:17.025154 23.30.150.141 > 169.228.34.84: 44.44.48.29.6711 > 152.70.159.102.123: [udp sum ok] v4 client strat 0 poll 0 prec 0 dist 0.000000 disp 0.000000 ref (unspec)(a)0.000000000 orig 0.000000000 rec -0.000000000 xmt +824494743.794610023 [tos 0x10] (ttl 63, id 64906, len 76) [tos 0x10] (ttl 64, id 14623, len 96) 15:52:17.955195 23.30.150.141 > 169.228.34.84: 44.44.48.29 > 142.250.80.4: icmp: echo request (id:cf3d seq:538) (ttl 254, id 59942, len 84) (ttl 64, id 39191, len 104) ^C 20 packets received by filter 0 packets dropped by kernel ``` However, if I try to `ping` a machine I own elsewhere on the network where I can run `tcpdump`, the traffic never seems to get there. Further, I can `ping` my external interface from elsewhere on the network. That all appears to be working. IPv6 works, so I'm fairly confident in e.g. my firewall rules and so on. Curiously, I am receiving RIP packets from 44.0.0.1 on the multicast group, and I can `ping` other machines inside the AMPRNet mesh, but this all strongly implies that the UCSD gateway is dropping traffic to and from my subnet. Is that expected? Thanks! - Dan C. (KZ2X)

7 months, 2 weeks

NTP Server

by lleachii＠aol.com

All, I did some work on restoring my netflow collectors - and the first thing I noticed was the NTP server ns.ardc.net is giving me an error. It seems that it does not allow queries from our Gateway Public IPs as AMPRGW previously did. This provides a chicken-or-the-egg issue on some of my configs if any time-based services are needed (i.e. if I only rely on ns.ardc.net for time). This could be a serious issue if e.g. tunnels were switched to Wireguard (i.e. needing time for encryption). A SK (I will not name) frowned upon NTP via IPENCAP for obvious reasons (I hope the DNS discussions make clear that a UDP NTP packet with latency or delays from 2 rounds trips is BAD). I'm looking into the implications for myself and possibly for others by not considering this before the change was made. I'm now working on routes/rules to make an exception for this IP; but it will require some testing as this would be on my main (non-AMPRNet) routing table, which is BAD. I haven't taken time to determine if this will cause issues for other use cases. I am still run the Stratum 2 server for those who may realize that they are no longer syncing only on AMRPNet's NTP services. IP: 44.60.44.1Hostname: kb3vwg-001.ampr.orgAccess Policy: (123/udp open to 44net and Public GW IPs) 73, LynwoodKB3VWG

7 months, 2 weeks

Reminder: ARDC Code of Conduct

by Rosy Schechter - KJ7RYV

Hi folks, In addition to helping to ideally clarify some of the questions that have come up on the mailing list, given the tone of some of the recent communications, it seems prudent to remind this group of ARDC’s Code of Conduct: https://www.ardc.net/about/legal/code-of-conduct/ The policy outlines examples of unacceptable behavior, the process for dealing with incident reports, as well as varying types of outcomes. It is true that the new Portal rollout has caused some confusion, and I completely understand the frustration that comes with it. At the same time, ARDC is committed to facilitating a “supportive, productive, and fun learning environment.” Before sending an email, I ask that everyone pause, breathe, and re-read, looking for opportunities to remove language that could be considered accusatory, hostile, or aggressive. Our goal is to solve problems together, and flaming the fires of division impedes progress in that direction. Thank you for your attention, Rosy -- Rosy Schechter - KJ7RYV Executive Director Amateur Radio Digital Communications (ARDC) ardc.net

7 months, 2 weeks

Answering recent questions, providing context

by Rosy Schechter - KJ7RYV

Hi everyone, Just a note to say QSL on many of the recent messages, as well as to provide some information that hopefully addresses some of the inquiries and concerns. In particular, there are many questions about what regional coordinators can and cannot do with the new portal, as well as requests for more clarity surrounding the Level of Trust (LoT). At a high level, here are some brief updates about each of those items: 1. One of the biggest concerns we have heard from coordinators is that they are not able to administer their address space on the new Portal. Specifically, members report that they are unable to place requests for address space in the regional/country allocations. The new portal defaults to keeping address assignments private, however you can enable requests by changing the network’s “Mode” from “Private” to “Open,” this will allow members to place requests within the assignment. If anyone requires further information on how to manage this, please contact: newportal(a)ardc.net. 2. As many of you have pointed out, having a single person administering the Portal also creates a bottleneck. Additionally, it creates a single point of failure. The new Portal has the facility to assign tasks to various Administrator roles to address this issue. 3. The Level of Trust (LoT) was established so that we at ARDC can better ensure a user’s identity with a significant degree of confidence. In general, there are two major categories: 1) BGP users and 2) non-BGP users (i.e., “everyone else”). As there is a greater risk associated with BGP, a higher LoT is required, and thus, more information will be required for BGP allocations. For non-BGP users (/25 addresses and smaller), we only verify your email address, given name, family name, and active call signs. BGP usage requires additional postal address verification, which takes a few more steps. Many thanks to BGP users, in particular, for your patience here. With the Portal and with 44Net in general – the goal is to do what we can to increase usage and to make our technology better. We're also evolving as an organization, which means evolving processes to become more collaborative and streamlined in everything from policy development to tech releases. We still have some way to go to reach an optimal state. It's difficult to get there without hitting some snags and bumps, particularly when working with dozens of intelligent people with varying ideas about the “right” way to build something. We are committed to getting there, and we are already learning lessons from this experience that will make the next rollout better. In the meantime, to anyone who feels like they aren’t being heard, please know that you are. We are taking this feedback seriously for future features and processes. We’ll also follow up with regional coordinators to find a time for a group discussion in the coming weeks. Please also note – as some of you have likely seen – we are down a key employee due to him becoming SK: https://www.ardc.net/remembering-john-hays-k7ve-sk/ We had another employee depart a couple of weeks before John’s death. The loss of these two people means a loss of 20% of our staff. As a result, we are unexpectedly working through things more slowly than we would like. I ask everyone for patience while we get our feet back under us and restaff (which will take at least a couple of months). I hope this message helps to clarify where we’re at. As always, if you have any questions and/or would like further clarification, please don’t hesitate to reach out, and we will help as much as we can. Thank you again to everyone for your patience, and we also appreciate the productive components of the feedback received. 73, Rosy KJ7RYV -- Rosy Schechter - KJ7RYV Executive Director Amateur Radio Digital Communications (ARDC) ardc.net

7 months, 2 weeks

← Newer
1
...
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
...
317
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net