> What's the timeframe to get a block of IP's, I'd like to start testing
> and messing around with AMPRnet. I've got BGP routing available, and I
> can't wait to get connected.
> I am my Wireless ISP, so that won't be an issue. I have a few different
> routes, so I'm hoping for a /23, and put one on each end of my network.
Well, it should be mentioned that going directly for BGP routing and mentioning
that you are an ISP is probably not going to speed things up!
It would be advisable to start experiments with IPIP tunnels or other connectivity
and add BGP routing later, as a service to local hams only.
There are lots of requests for large blocks to be BGP routed for AMPRnet that really
are attempts from ISPs to get IPv4 space that they can no longer obtain from the
normal registries, so this kind of requests and formulation will make the
coordinator very wary...
Rob
What's the timeframe to get a block of IP's, I'd like to start testing
and messing around with AMPRnet. I've got BGP routing available, and I
can't wait to get connected.
KB3PEV
Michael W Rhone II
> We do service a handful repeaters, and I'm hoping to do a some sort of
> RF based TCP/IP solution, haven't found one I like yet. Any
> recommendations? I could go Wifi based, 900/2.4,5ghz, but I'm hoping
> to find something other then packet to use at 440 or 1.2.
Check out NW Digital Radio's UDRX-440 (56kbps IPv6 on 440 MHz)
MichaelN6MEF
Hello,
I have linbpq32 setup and would like to get more axip connections and chat
links. I also would like to get some messages flowing my direction.
Could anyone help? I can give you my MAP line...
73's
Shawn Bush
KD8NCV
Hi All,
Since compiling JNOS2.0 some years ago, I have always had problems with
Netrom transmits killing it back to the directory prompt.
I have been using JNOS1 version ? in its place for a long time because of
the same problem.
But today I downloaded and compiled the latest JNOS2.0k and have the very
same problem.
It all compiles ok on my Fedora (latest updates) it starts and runs
perfectly until it does a node transmit and dies immediately.
I can poke it with all the netrom commands until I do "netrom bcnodes port"
and it crashes.
It receives nodes ok and populates the list ok. It also does normal "Connect
XX VK1KW-5" ok.
So to try another idea, I removed all my netrom options from autoexec.nos
and used the defaults. (except interface /call/node name). Same problem and
crashed.
I notice also in this version, you need to type the whole word eg "connect"
vice "con" or "ifconfig" vice "ifc".
Maybe something in Fedora is not compiled in or is missing or I haven't read
enough yet.
There may be a conflict in my config.h but it's pretty much the same as
original.
So I am open to ideas.
Thanks in advance
Regards
Rob
Vk1kw
Last night launched fully functional mailing list
named xfbb-bis and currently widely available at:
http://www.sp2l.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/xfbb-bis
I warmly invite everyone wishing/willing to test
performance and usability of this site.
Best regards.
--
Tom - SP2L
------------------------------------
It is nice to be important.
But it is more important to be nice!
The encap file currently contains a bogus entry:
route addprivate 44.8.1.16/28 encap 0.0.0.0
I've asked Chris to make it impossible to enter this into
the portal as it's clearly wrong. The ripsender and amprgw
encapsulating daemon discard this already.
- Brian
W4EWH de N2XU.
The 172.x.x.x space I use sits within the reserved RFC-1918 172.16.0.0/12
space reserved for private networks. I use it for my home LAN just as I
could use 10/8 or anywhere in 192.168/16 space. I use it because some folks
are unaware of the allocation and are more likely to see it as you have
which is intended to make them shy away from messing with it OR ask
questions which I welcome because it's an opportunity to help folks learn
something they might not know. Any time we learn more about networks and
networking to advance what we know is a good thing.
74 de N2XU
Tom Cardinal/MSgt USAF (Ret)/BSCS/Security+ ce
--
73 de N2XU/Tom Cardinal/MSgt USAF (Ret)/BSCS/Security+/IPv6 Certified
> >/The list of UDP ports at Wikipedia(1) doesn't show port 93 or 10093, /> >/so I suggest we correct Wikipedia's list, since port 93 is shown as /> >/assigned to "Device Control Protocol" by the IANA(3). /
> Yes, our usage of port 93/UDP for AXUDP is completely unrecognized by
> IANA. There is no official document describing AXUDP so there is no
> way for us to claim a port - although there's no prohibition on
> using any port number we want, since port numbers are not absolutes.
> Still, it's not wise to double-up on port numbers.
In the "old days" it was quite easy to register port numbers, and in fact
I have registered a few myself that I still use for similar but not the same
purposes (459, 1535, 1536). However, it appears to be not as simple anymore
and looking at protocols that are in much more widespread use than AXUDP it
appears to be not common anymore to register ports used only by some proprietary
protocol at IANA (there are way, way more protocols in use than those with
IANA-registered port numbers).
Note that at the time I registered the above 3, IANA would not take suggestions
for the numbers to register. I claimed different numbers that were unregistered,
but they gave me those instead. Asking for port 93 to be registered is unlikely
to succeed, 10093 may be possible.
Registered port numbers are useful mainly for open protocols that are widely
implemented and that accept unsolicited incoming connections. So everyone knows
what port you have your wellknown services listening on.
There is not much that can go wrong when using a port number without registering
it, especially when the receiving application accepts data only from a
pre-configured peer. The port numbers used essentially don't matter in that
case, the only thing you need to make sure is that you don't have another
session with that same peer that would want to use the same port number.
(e.g. it would not be wise to use port 5198/5199 as these are used by Echolink,
another port usage that is not registered at IANA and is in much more widespread
use than AXUDP)
Rob
> I'm a bit confused by your post: since 172.29.x.x addresses are
> reserved for "Detached" networks, please clarify the source of the
> 172.29.60.0 IP range you mentioned. Is it provided by your ISP, or are
> you going through a corporate network to get to the Internet? TIA.
This range is from RFC1918 where the 192.168 addresses also come from.
He probably has those addresses on his LAN and uses NAT to connect to internet.
Of course it is possible to use NAT between such a range and the AMPRnet, but
I don't recommend it. It is better to assign net-44 addresses to AMPRnet devices,
maybe have 2 addresses on one device.
Understanding a mixed-network NAT configuration (NAT to internet and NAT to AMPRnet
in the same network router) is hard for most people, and often mistakes are made,
resulting it lots of RFC1918 traffic ingress in the AMPRnet.
I get lots of log entries like this in our gateway:
Mar 3 09:56:13 Packet DROP: IN=gre8 OUT=tun0 SRC=192.168.1.101 DST=44.137.25.148 LEN=590 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=60 ID=0 DF PROTO=UDP SPT=5060 DPT=5060 LEN=570
(you see, the timestamp is "current")
Apparently someone experimenting with SIP. My own SIP phone is at 44.137.41.104
so I don't have such issues, I can connect to that 44.137.25.148 SIP server without NAT.
Rob
