44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

1 participants
3200 discussions

Re: [44net] ampr-ripd 2.0 released Marius Petrescu marius at yo2loj.ro
by Rob Janssen 26 May '17

26 May '17

> >/Everyone is free to use the -g option if needed /> Yes, but is eth0.2 a valid entry? The parameter of -g is an IP address. It it not the IP address of an interface but of the gateway to the internet. So specifying an interface like eth0.2 does not make sense. You could use something like this: .... -g `ip route list | grep '^default' | sed -e 's/.*via //' -e 's/ .*//'` Rob

2 1

Re: [44net] non-operational gateways
by Rob Janssen 26 May '17

26 May '17

> Thinking about this, I recall that I run an IPv6 tunnel with Hurricane > Electric in the same manner. They require that I allow ICMP - Echo > Request to the border. The tunnel doesn't come online at their end, > until they receive an Echo Reply from the IP I specified (either > statically or with DDNS). > Just a rule used by one ISP. I think it is not required to allow pings to the outside address, and it may be difficult for some people to fulfill that requirement (as it may be part of the setup of their ISP router to disallow these). Instead, I would like to see that pings to at least one of the gatewayed addresses are allowed (a net-44 address inside one of the subnet(s) routed to that gateway). This is also much more indicative of a functioning gateway. In the IPv6 tunnel example that would mean allowing ping to one IPv6 address. Of course our problem is that we never asked the gateway operators for the address of their gateway on net-44. So that would have to be added in the form, the database and the encap file (or some other file). Rob

1 0

Wiki Content - How many tunnels?
by lleachii＠aol.com 26 May '17

26 May '17

All, It's my understanding that the operating systems we work with only need 1 tunnel, or one system declaration for it. Except those OSes listed under "Non-RIP44 Workarounds", does anyone else run an OS not on the list - that requires you to create more than one (1) tunnel, specify a remote IP other than "Any", or create a route for it before you receive traffic? All I have to do is tell tunl0 to be UP and I'll receive ANYTHING. OPs using other operating systems seem to have configuration differences (maybe that's why they don't understand security concerns). I'm not sure if there's a configuration difference in the Kernels, or what...? 73, - Lynwood KB3VWG

2 1

brave volunteer needed
by Brian Kantor 26 May '17

26 May '17

It looks to me like the new amprgw is working. I'd like to ask for a brave volunteer who is willing to try changing his outgoing route from old amprgw (169.228.66.251) to new amprgw (169.228.34.84) to see if he's able to make connection with the outside world. The return path will still be via old amprgw as we haven't changed the nexthop for 44.0.0.0/8 from oldamprgw to new. If someone would try this and let me know if it worked I'd very much appreciate it. - Brian

2 17

non-operational gateways
by Tom C 25 May '17

25 May '17

In just the past couple of days I got my gateway working. I have a CS degree, test software for a living and considered myself proficient on linux but found getting the gateway to work correctly difficult due to contradictions in documentation and examples. With KB3VWG's help I was able to get it working. I'll just say it was a little difficult to get it going, mostly due to understanding how it all works together. I'm using ubuntu linux as a gateway. On the subject of non-operational gateways I would consider attempting to send RIP broadcasts to them at a reduced rate instead of deleting them. In my case I'm on a dynamic address. It doesn't change often, longest I've had an address was about 5 months. It's most apt to change if I restart. I registered my gateway in January... it was down all of Jan and Feb. It's been intermittent but mostly down since until Monday evening of this week. Had my gateway been deleted or removed from the list I'd now be offline rather than online. Lynwood was a great help with understanding policy routing rules and I'd like to publically thank him here. He's patient and points things out that don't work. I plan to document my journey so others who wish to join the network can learn from my mistakes. I'm a firm believer in understanding how it works. --tom /n2xu -- 73 de N2XU/Tom Cardinal/MSgt USAF (Ret)/BSCS/Security+/IPv6 Certified

6 5

netflow
by Brian Kantor 25 May '17

25 May '17

I'm now gathering netflow-like statistics from the router daemon. It's a lot of data. I've been unable to find a clear definition of the standard (v1 or v5) netflow disk file format, so I don't have input suitable for any of the good analysis tools. Does anyone have such a description? And what are your favourite analysis tools? - Brian

6 20

Re: [44net] Traffic not routing to my gateway
by Rob Janssen 25 May '17

25 May '17

> IPIP is possible on the SRX but not in cluster (virtual chassis mode) Being able to setup a single or even multiple IPIP tunnels is not suffcient to be a member of the AMPRnet IPIP mesh. See what Brian wrote: > This is a mesh network, not a star, so there is no default route; you > need a separate tunnel route to each gateway you want to communicate with, Marius has written a very nice script to get it working on a MikroTik router, but most other commercial routers lack the scripting capabilities to pull this off on their own. Someone wrote a script to use a Cisco router but it requires a separate machine to run it. Rob

5 9

Re: [44net] non-operational gateways
by Rob Janssen 24 May '17

24 May '17

> I've added code to the rip sender that watches for ICMP unreachable > packets coming back to amprgw during the rip sending cycle, which repeats > every 5 minutes. Make sure you act only on ICMP unreachables that refer to the protocol 4, not to the port 520! When protocol 4 is unreachable, it sure means the gateway is not operational, as it rejects operational traffic. When it rejects port 520, it could be that it is not using RIP to update its tables (it could be downloading encap files!) or even that it *is* using RIP but via raw sockets (ampr-ripd -r) and has a firewall that rejects the packets. ampr-ripd would still see and process them! That condition could be flagged in yet another status report, but it should not be a base to declare the gateway inactive. Also, we recently have seen some postings that indicate that some people operate a gateway that has tunnels to all other gateways, but explicitly have excluded a tunnel to amprgw. Because that brings mostly internet traffic and they don't want to have that. Of course another (not exclusively deciding) check on gateway activity could be to check if you actually receive any tunneled packets from them. I do have that as a byproduct of having an access list that accepts protocol 4 traffic only from addresses of registered gateways. At the moment it shows traffic from 34 different gateways (including amprgw). Of course, when the external address of a gateway changes, its history is lost. Rob

6 14

Re: [44net] non-operational gateways
by Rob Janssen 24 May '17

24 May '17

> Sorry to ask but what has accepting RIP to do with the gateway IP? > RIP is encapsulated into IPIP, so no firewall will ever care about that. > And no sane firewall setup will accept RIP on its WAN. > From both the gateway's point of view it's just protocol 4, nothing else. What I mentioned in my earlier post is that a "protocol unreachable" (for protocol 4 packets) is a serious condition although it could still be valid when encountered by amprgw and not by the other gatways. A "port unreachable" for UDP port 520 indeed is not an error condition. The gateway may not be using RIP. Or, the firewall may have been configured to reject port 520 traffic while ampr-ripd -r is still processing it. (not likely because the RIP traffic is multicast so would not normally be replied to by the firewall) To do some better "gateway alive" testing I think some extra steps are required: 1. a mandatory field has to be added to a gateway registration entry, with an IP address inside the routed subnets that is pingable. (of course getting everyone to enter this data will be difficult) 2. a separate "monitoring station" has to be setup that acts as a gateway and pings that address regularly (but not overly often) and keeps stats on the returned pings. The monitoring station has to be separate from amprgw because some people choose not to tunnel to amprgw. Alternatively, a checkbox could be added to gateway registrations to specify if the gateway wants to receive internet traffic (to be handled by the amprgw firewall table) and it could be made mandatory to tunnel to amprgw. That would probably be preferable, as it would also make 44.0.0.1 reachable for those gateways that do not want to get internet traffic. Adding the fields to the gateway registration system should be straightforward, but of course getting everyone to enter them wouldn't be. Not responding to a request to enter information of course could be treated as an indication that the gateway is no longer active. Rob

3 2

Re: [44net] non-operational gateways
by Rob Janssen 24 May '17

24 May '17

> There is also the question of how this data is to be transferred > from the portal to amprgw. We currently download the same encap > file that any gateway would use. Some new file format would also > be needed. It should be trivial to add another file, gateways.txt, that contains the per-gateway information. Or it could be added as comment lines into the existing encap.txt file. Maybe it would also make some tunnel creation scripts simpler when there is a section with gateway info (one line for each gateway, with a unique ID, the external IP, and info like proposed today: an internal IP and the "accept internet traffic" flag) ahead of the traditional route lines. It would allow the preparation of all required tunnel interfaces in environments where that is required before parsing the subnet routes. Rob

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net