44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3196 discussions

ns.ardc.org access
by lleachii＠aol.com 11 May '24

11 May '24

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

4 13

Portal Unassigned Tickets
by lleachii＠aol.com 10 May '24

10 May '24

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

1 1

UCSD gateway not responding after router reboot?
by Dan Cross 10 May '24

10 May '24

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)

8 19

NTP Server
by lleachii＠aol.com 10 May '24

10 May '24

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

2 4

Reminder: ARDC Code of Conduct
by Rosy Schechter - KJ7RYV 09 May '24

09 May '24

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

1 0

Answering recent questions, providing context
by Rosy Schechter - KJ7RYV 09 May '24

09 May '24

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

1 0

Strange DNS behavior?
by Dan Cross 07 May '24

07 May '24

# Summary Given that DNS has been a popular topic of discussion lately, I thought it might be useful to try and put some words about it on the Wiki. In preparation for this, I was playing around with the recursive DNS server on my subnet, and I ran into some strange behavior that I don't understand; perhaps someone else knows what's going on? To my eye, it looks like some types of PTR queries are being dropped at or before AMPRGW; this behavior is repeatable. # Setup and Context * I have a machine on my allocated subnet (44.44.48.29) that is running a recursive, caching DNS server (that is, a resolver). * The resolver is configured with stub zones that forward requests for ampr.org, 44.in-addr.arpa and 128.44.in-addr.arpa to the authoritative servers for those zones listed on the Wiki * The resolver is configured to respond to requests issued over both IPv4 and IPv6 * Machines on my subnet are configured to query this server. * I have configured my firewall to allow access to the `domain` port (e.g., UDP/53) on that machine from a few places on the Internet --- but not all. # Observations What I observe is inconsistent, but repeatable, failures when issuing PTR queries for certain IP addresses via IPv4 from the external Internet. * Forward queries from all sources seem to work fine. At least, I haven't observed any that fail (other than for, say, non-existent hostnames). * Similarly, PTR queries issued from the hosts on my subnet all seem to work as expected. * PTR queries issued over IPv6 seem to work fine from any source. * PTR queries issued over IPv4 from other networks locally connected to my home network (I have several ethernets and TCP/IP networks at home, interconnected with a set of routers and switches) all seem to work fine. * PTR queries for _some_ IP addresses issued over IPv4 from external machines on the Internet work reliably. For example, I can reliably query for 44.1.1.44, 44.0.0.1, 127.0.0.1, and 8.8.8.8 and I don't believe I've ever seen any of these queries fail. * PTR queries for _most_ 44Net IP addresses issued over IPv4 from external machines on the Internet fail reliably. For example, I cannot query for 44.44.48.1 (my gateway), or 44.182.21.1 (YO2LOJ's machine). I don't believe I have ever seen any of these queries succeed. Note that the only thing that differs in the last two cases is the address I'm trying to resolve. Now the interesting part. For the failing queries, I've observed that the actual query traffic _never makes it to my gateway from UCSD_. That is, the encapsulated datagram carrying the UDP packet containing the query never makes it to the external gateway. I issued these queries with the `host` tool. To verify this, I ran `tcpdump` in several places: 1. At the source machine where I issued the DNS queries: tcpdump -vvn host 44.44.48.29 2. On my gateway, examining the encapsulated traffic on the external interface: tcpdump -vvni cnmac1 ip proto 4 and 'ip[29:1] == 17 and (ip[42:2] == 53 or ip[40:2] == 53)' (Note the `ip[...]` expressions are matching in the encapsulated IP and UDP headers.) 3. On the DNS server machine itself: tcpdump -vvn udp port domain or tcp port domain To verify that everything is working as expected, first I issue a successful forward query: ``` : gaja; host -4 kz2x.ampr.org srv.kz2x.ampr.org Using domain server: Name: srv.kz2x.ampr.org Address: 44.44.48.29#53 Aliases: kz2x.ampr.org has address 44.44.48.2 kz2x.ampr.org has IPv6 address 2603:3005:b04:8144:48:edff:fe9c:c00 : gaja; ``` Note that the query succeeded (the astute reader may notice that that's missing an MX record, but ignore that for now), but let's look at the `tcpdump` output at each stage just to see what it looks like. Note that the data is in my cache, so I omit the details of recursive queries down to the roots, etc. From the local machine where I issue the query, one sees: ``` 20:07:31.444583 166.84.136.80.35777 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 32707+ A? kz2x.ampr.org.(31) (ttl 64, id 18835, len 59) 20:07:31.603276 44.44.48.29.53 > 166.84.136.80.35777: [udp sum ok] 32707* q: A? kz2x.ampr.org. 1/0/0 kz2x.ampr.org. A 44.44.48.2(47) (ttl 40, id 12176, len 75) 20:07:31.605932 166.84.136.80.22717 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 7616+ AAAA? kz2x.ampr.org.(31) (ttl 64, id 58081, len 59) 20:07:31.761378 44.44.48.29.53 > 166.84.136.80.22717: [udp sum ok] 7616* q: AAAA? kz2x.ampr.org. 1/0/0 kz2x.ampr.org. AAAA 2603:3005:b04:8144:48:edff:fe9c:c00(59) (ttl 40, id 62606, len 87) 20:07:31.762560 166.84.136.80.28977 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 58832+ MX? kz2x.ampr.org.(31) (ttl 64, id 41619, len 59) 20:07:31.911483 44.44.48.29.53 > 166.84.136.80.28977: 58832* q: MX? kz2x.ampr.org. 0/1/0 ns: kz2x.ampr.org. SOA[|domain] (ttl 40, id 37627, len 110) ``` From the external interface on my AMPRNet gateway machine, I see: 20:07:31.523609 169.228.34.84 > 23.30.150.141: 166.84.136.80.35777 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 32707+ A? kz2x.ampr.org.(31) [tos 0x28] (ttl 49, id 18835, len 59) (ttl 48, id 486, len 79) 20:07:31.524290 23.30.150.141 > 169.228.34.84: 44.44.48.29.53 > 166.84.136.80.35777: [udp sum ok] 32707* q: A? kz2x.ampr.org. 1/0/0 kz2x.ampr.org. A 44.44.48.2(47) (ttl 63, id 12176, len 75) (ttl 64, id 12041, len 95) 20:07:31.683608 169.228.34.84 > 23.30.150.141: 166.84.136.80.22717 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 7616+ AAAA? kz2x.ampr.org.(31) [tos 0x28] (ttl 49, id 58081, len 59) (ttl 48, id 6515, len 79) 20:07:31.684262 23.30.150.141 > 169.228.34.84: 44.44.48.29.53 > 166.84.136.80.22717: 7616* q: AAAA? kz2x.ampr.org. 1/0/0 kz2x.ampr.org. AAAA[|domain] (ttl 63, id 62606, len 87) (ttl 64, id 48275, len 107) 20:07:31.836445 169.228.34.84 > 23.30.150.141: 166.84.136.80.28977 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 58832+ MX? kz2x.ampr.org.(31) [tos 0x28] (ttl 49, id 41619, len 59) (ttl 48, id 6629, len 79) 20:07:31.837067 23.30.150.141 > 169.228.34.84: 44.44.48.29.53 > 166.84.136.80.28977: 58832* q: MX? kz2x.ampr.org. 0/1/0 ns: kz2x.ampr.org. SOA[|domain] (ttl 63, id 37627, len 110) (ttl 64, id 12165, len 130) And on the DNS server machine itself: ``` 20:07:31.520610 166.84.136.80.35777 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 32707+ A? kz2x.ampr.org.(31) [tos 0x28] (ttl 48, id 44358, len 59) 20:07:31.520796 44.44.48.29.53 > 166.84.136.80.35777: [udp sum ok] 32707* q: A? kz2x.ampr.org. 1/0/0 kz2x.ampr.org. A 44.44.48.2(47) (ttl 64, id 33360, len 75) 20:07:31.680599 166.84.136.80.22717 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 7616+ AAAA? kz2x.ampr.org.(31) [tos 0x28] (ttl 48, id 23293, len 59) 20:07:31.680766 44.44.48.29.53 > 166.84.136.80.22717: [udp sum ok] 7616* q: AAAA? kz2x.ampr.org. 1/0/0 kz2x.ampr.org. AAAA 2603:3005:b04:8144:48:edff:fe9c:c00(59) (ttl 64, id 31261, len 87) 20:07:31.833404 166.84.136.80.28977 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 58832+ MX? kz2x.ampr.org.(31) [tos 0x28] (ttl 48, id 44916, len 59) 20:07:31.833578 44.44.48.29.53 > 166.84.136.80.28977: 58832* q: MX? kz2x.ampr.org. 0/1/0 ns: kz2x.ampr.org. SOA[|domain] (ttl 64, id 28444, len 110) ``` These results are all expected. Similarly for a successful reverse query: ``` : gaja; host -4 44.1.1.44 srv.kz2x.ampr.org Using domain server: Name: srv.kz2x.ampr.org Address: 44.44.48.29#53 Aliases: 44.1.1.44.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer ns.ardc.net. : gaja; ``` As seen from the source host: ``` 20:13:37.445021 166.84.136.80.4339 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 61470+ PTR? 44.1.1.44.in-addr.arpa.(40) (ttl 64, id 34902, len 68) 20:13:37.609712 44.44.48.29.53 > 166.84.136.80.4339: [udp sum ok] 61470 q: PTR? 44.1.1.44.in-addr.arpa. 1/0/0 44.1.1.44.in-addr.arpa. PTR ns.ardc.net.(65) (ttl 40, id 15635, len 93) ``` From the gateway: ``` 20:13:37.523609 169.228.34.84 > 23.30.150.141: 166.84.136.80.4339 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 61470+ PTR? 44.1.1.44.in-addr.arpa.(40) [tos 0x28] (ttl 49, id 34902, len 68) (ttl 48, id 13407, len 88) 20:13:37.533691 23.30.150.141 > 169.228.34.84: 44.44.48.29.53 > 166.84.136.80.4339: 61470 q: PTR? 44.1.1.44.in-addr.arpa. 1/0/0 44.1.1.44.in-addr.arpa. PTR[|domain] (ttl 63, id 15635, len 93) (ttl 64, id 52552, len 113) ``` And at the DNS server: ``` 20:13:37.520500 166.84.136.80.4339 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 61470+ PTR? 44.1.1.44.in-addr.arpa.(40) [tos 0x28] (ttl 48, id 22620, len 68) 20:13:37.520691 44.44.48.29.53 > 166.84.136.80.4339: [udp sum ok] 61470 q: PTR? 44.1.1.44.in-addr.arpa. 1/0/0 44.1.1.44.in-addr.arpa. PTR ns.ardc.net.(65) (ttl 64, id 59842, len 93) ``` Okay, but what about a failing query? Let's try one: ``` : gaja; host -4 44.44.48.29 srv.kz2x.ampr.org ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached : gaja; ``` Uh oh. As seen from the source host: ``` 20:15:26.775880 166.84.136.80.29535 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 39502+ PTR? 29.48.44.44.in-addr.arpa.(42) (ttl 64, id 59475, len 70) 20:15:27.776870 166.84.136.80.29535 > 44.44.48.29.53: [udp sum ok] 39502+ PTR? 29.48.44.44.in-addr.arpa.(42) (ttl 64, id 40687, len 70) ``` But at the gateway, nothing at all is seen; no relevant data is received from the AMPRGW, and of course, similarly at the DNS server as well. So it appears that these queries are being lost, either at AMPRGW or before. Has anyone seen this before? Is it expected? - Dan C.

4 9

AMPR Portal Cut-over 1 Month Later
by Charles J. Hargrove 05 May '24

05 May '24

So, everyone out in 44net land, how are things? After one month since the "cut-over": - are the coordinators allowed to coordinate fully? - are the requestors allowed to be assigned a non-.32/.61/63 address? - is everyone "trusted" enough to use the portal freely/fully again? Inquiring minds, and those waiting for an allocation, want to know. -- 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 8

Connectivity into 44net
by Trevor Halsey 05 May '24

05 May '24

Hello everyone, I've had a 44net account for a while now and I've played with both setting up OpenWRT, several Linux VMs, and a Cisco 1900 (with limited knowledge and testing from work when we got fancy ISR4443's) but never actually achieved anything. Previously I read that to achieve BGP connectivity something had to be done with the ISP to allow the AS route to be announced/routed so that may have been another roadblock. Also with the whole IPIP based traffic, you can only have a limited number of devices unless you start working nat-magic and throw everything behind the same ip. Personally, I'm more familiar with VPN-based tunneling back to an endpoint and the datacenter/carrier-based router would announce the /24 route based on the status of the tunnel/ip and would not actually need to involve the non-rfp'd local carrier at all. As long as traffic could be passed through a tcp port, the connection could be made. Are there any opportunities with IPSEC/SSL/OpenVPN or even SDWAN endpoints joining the network instead of needing a router and formal networking knowledge to do the same? I just keep running into the same issues with 44net even though I can muster along and setup my work sites with good old IPSEC tunnels and locking the service down. Thanks, KD8SEP Trevor Halsey Middletown, Ohio

3 2

Re: [EastNetPacket] Requesting New Allocations Is Incomplete
by Charles J. Hargrove 05 May '24

05 May '24

I have been asked to participate in a conference call with ARDC staff regarding the concerns about the portal cut-over. If there are any items that you would like me to bring up during the call (not scheduled yet), please email me directly at n2nov(a)n2nov.net with it. On 4/19/2024 2:44 PM, Charles J. Hargrove wrote: > I just received email and then a phone call from a person that wanted > to join one of our networks in the Northeast USA for the purposes of > routing Echolink, repeaters and more. When logging onto the "new" AMPR > portal, they were given only a choice of a few subnets based on a dropdown > list of intended uses. None of them jived with the networks in any of > the individual states or countries. I would suggest spreading the word > that all requests for new or expanded allocations be held up until things > can be straightened out. It seems that their small volunteer force is > unable to keep up with the workload since the changeover on April 3rd. > I personally have over a dozen tickets unassigned and even one from 4/3. > Everyone just standby and chill until they figure things out. No need > to expect steak when they are working with hamburger. > > I just jumped on the AMPR portal and found only these choices: > IPIP Tunnel Mesh 44.63.0.0/16 > > BGP Direct Announce 44.32.0.0/16 > > Radio 44.61.0.0/16 > Globally Unique 44.61.0.0/16 > General Address 44.61.0.0/16 > > AREDN - contact AREDN directly > HAMNET - contact HAMNET directly in Europe > HAMWAN - contact HAMWAN directly > -- 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

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net