44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3196 discussions

Axip and mail
by Shawn Bush 09 Mar '17

09 Mar '17

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

2 1

JNOS2.0K and Netrom problem
by vk1kw 09 Mar '17

09 Mar '17

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

3 5

[xfbb-bis] - (new/test) mailing list
by SP2L 08 Mar '17

08 Mar '17

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!

3 3

bogus entry in encap file
by Brian Kantor 07 Mar '17

07 Mar '17

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

2 1

Re: [44net] Hello
by Tom C 05 Mar '17

05 Mar '17

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

1 0

Re: [44net] AXUDP spec
by Rob Janssen 03 Mar '17

03 Mar '17

> >/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

2 1

Re: [44net] Hello
by Rob Janssen 03 Mar '17

03 Mar '17

> 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

1 0

AXUDP spec
by Michael Fox - N6MEF 03 Mar '17

03 Mar '17

I'm looking for the specific definition of AXUDP. Is there an official protocol specification for AXUDP somewhere? Thanks, Michael N6MEF

6 12

Hello
by Tom C 02 Mar '17

02 Mar '17

I've bitten the bullet and started to make some progress getting on 44net. I'm certain my current issues are firewall and I'll get it sorted out. My non-ham network is in the 172.29.60.0/22 range. I don't think I'm leaking internal stuff to my partially built tunnel but If anyone sees packets from that block please let me know. Status: Attempted to ping 44.0.0.1 on a system on the ampr enclave on my network, With tcpdump listening on the gateway ampr0 interface I can see packets going out on the interface but that doesn't mean the packets are getting out of the box. I'm not seeing a response but like I said, I think it's a firewall issue. I just wanted to say Hi to to everyone and say I'm looking forward to exchanging packets with everyone 73 de n2xu Tom Cardinal/MSgt USAF (Ret)/BSCS/Security+ ce -- 73 de N2XU/Tom Cardinal/MSgt USAF (Ret)/BSCS/Security+/IPv6 Certified

4 4

Re: [44net] AXUDP spec
by Rob Janssen 02 Mar '17

02 Mar '17

> Unfortunately, there are problems with AXIP and AXUDP ever since the > revisions of AX.25 were published - the AX.25 frames may get too big > to encapsulate in unfragmented IP and UDP frames. Any new document > would have to discuss the fragmentation issues, and I'll bet they're > not defined. (As far as I know, the same issue applies to ROSE, KISS, > and Net/Rom encapsulation too.) Is this an issue? The AXUDP protocol simply is "put AX.25 frames in UDP datagrams" and an UDP datagram can be nearly 64KB in size so I would not think there are any issues. UDP and IP handle the fragmentation and reassembly and the receiver gets the original datagram to insert it into the AX.25 stack. Of course, AXUDP senders should not set the DF flag, and if they do, they should not expect more than about 512 bytes maximum frame size. Which still is enough for classic AX.25 packet radio. > Do any of the various implementations of AX.25 encompass v2.0 et seq as > published by TAPR? Ie, is anyone actually implementing jumbo frames, > expanded frame sequence numbers, etc? Or should we just treat it as a > bad idea that should be buried and go on with the old protocol? The actual AX.25 version and extensions like jumbo frames and extended sequence numbers should not affect AXUDP at all. The UDP layer only replaces the HDLC layer normally used to transfer data over radio, and all things happening in AX.25 should be compatible between the endpoints, as always. Rob

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net