> It is behind my ISP cable modem, I had to get it setup in bridging mode
> after the last time they upgraded it. My router is showing all the
> tunnel traffic (via tcpdump) so I'm fairly certain the modem isn't the
> issue.
Ok. I heard before from other members of this group that they had a similar
setup, yet I was never able to ping them unless they first pinged me.
> Central to my confusion at the moment is the rule in the nat PREROUTING
> isn't counting packets.
Remember that iptables NAT processing in Linux is stateful. It only sees
"new" traffic for a connection. Once a connection is in the NAT table, the
traffic goes "around" those rules much like Established/Related traffic in
the filter tables, but without an explicit visible rule for that purpose.
So, when you ping outward over a tunnel, you will not see those rules matching
yet the traffic is forwarded as reply to your outgoing pings.
Only when you ping from somewhere else, those rules are going to be of influence.
But of course they only see traffic when it actually arrives on your router.
Rob
> The latest reboot had me digging deeper to try to find the real problem
> and I have discovered that only the rule in FORWARD chain of the filter
> table is firing, not the DNAT in the nat table. I suspect the firewall
> is only working when some connection (outgoing ?) wakes up the
> masquerade rules but haven't actually found the rule that is active.
Are you sure the OpenWRT box is actually seeing the incoming packets?
Is it directly on the internet, or is there another box before it, e.g. an ISP
provided modem/router?
Even though you might have forwarded the protocol or even set the OpenWRT
box as the "DMZ device", it may still do stateful firewalling on non-TCP/UDP
protocols. That is a known problem with NAT routers.
Try to run a trace on the OpenWRT box to verify that you can receive IPIP
traffic from sources that you have not recently contacted with outgoing
traffic.
Rob
> I think with much larger address space and the availability of /56 or
> larger spaces for many connections means many of us already have excess,
> the second approach is worth investigating. Come up with DNS management
> and a system for automatically configuring AMPRNET6 routers to share
> trust information to tie the network together securely. As I said
> before, I could easily allocate part of my /56 to this project. I'm
> using less than 1% of my address range (1/256th to be exact :) ).
Address space is not an issue with IPv6. Everyone here gets a /48 with their
home internet connection. I use only 3/65536 of mine :-)
For a "global IPv6 space for amprnet" we would get a /32 and map it 1:1
with the existing net-44 addresses. That will give every net-44 IP user a
/56 network on IPv6.
However, I too don't think is the way to go. Just use the space you get on
your own internet connection for your own purposes on AMPRnet (and nag the
ISP when they don't provide IPv6, give you only a /128 or /64, or assign
dynamic prefixes - bad concepts in IPv6 rollout!).
Extend the current DNS server and robot with AAAA records, and find or design
some method of sharing the prefix list. Could be done using a BGP server.
(not the internet BGP but a server on AMPRnet that distributes prefixes)
Then we can interconnect on internet without the hassle we have now, and still
are able to route the same addresses over wireless networks.
Rob
Hello,
I seem to have something broken on my firewall for redirecting incoming
ipip packets to my gateway box. It appears to work fine at times but
fails periodically, typically after a reset/power failure. Usually it
comes back after several reboots of firewall and router but this process
is inconsistent.
The latest reboot had me digging deeper to try to find the real problem
and I have discovered that only the rule in FORWARD chain of the filter
table is firing, not the DNAT in the nat table. I suspect the firewall
is only working when some connection (outgoing ?) wakes up the
masquerade rules but haven't actually found the rule that is active.
The firewall is running on OpenWRT using iptables (old version 1.3.8)
and the rules as I think they should work are
## for ampr.org tunnels
iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -p 4 -i eth0.1 -j DNAT \
--to-destination 192.168.99.66
iptables -t filter -I FORWARD -p 4 -i eth0.1 -j ACCEPT
As I understand it, the first re-writes the destination for ipip packets
to my gateway and the second allows them to be forwarded however the
counter on first stays stuck at 0.
A reference to what sounds like a similar problem:
https://sourceforge.net/p/ipcop/mailman/message/17780204/
It would be really nice to get this sorted properly, any debugging hints
appreciated. In particular, am I correct in expecting both rule counters
to match ?
thx ...
... Niall
Hi folks,
I have a /29 subnet allocated and have been with interconnecting a few systems but want to expand that connectivity to other systems round the world.
Last time I experimented with amprnet was 15 years ago and I had a ipip tunnel to a packet node that also had amprnet connectivity. That node is long gone so looking for something else to use.
Reading info on the wiki, it sounds like I can now use rip and connect via the UCSD router. Have I under stood this correctly?
Any idiot guides out there on how to do this or any suggestions on other ways I can connect to a gateway?
Thanks
Jon
M1CQO
I'm unable to attend the 2016 TAPR DCC next month in St Petersburg
Florida. If anyone on this mailing list is going to be there, could
you please let us know the substance of any discussions relevant
to the AMPRNet.
Thank you.
- Brian
Hello,
I know the people on this maillist work on the real internet infrastructure types of networks,
but I was wondering if anyone thought an overlay network, such as CJDNS [1],
that uses cryptographic-generated addressing to ensure an FC::/8 address corresponds to a public certificate.
would be more practical for everyday hams who only have a behind-the-ISP or dynamic IP connection to the internet.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cjdns
!!Dean
KC4KSU
> It's frustrating when one has deployed IPv6 and has to keep battling
> with the evils of NAT. :/
But we have a large IPv4 space available so why would we battle with NAT???
It should not be a problem to get an IPv4 address from net-44 for any of your
experiments and not have to use NAT.
Not that I am against experimenting with IPv6, but I am not sure which way
that should go:
- somehow get an "own" IPv6 range that we can manage in a similar way as
the net-44 space
- just use the IPv6 space everyone can get from their local provider and
have only DNS support for it in ampr.org and maybe some service for listing
of prefixes in use on ampr hosts to be used in firewall address lists.
Having an own range appears nice, but it means we will again have the problems with
internet tunneling and BGP routing that we are having now.
Rob
I have replaced my cisco with mikrotik
the ipip works ok
i have two questions (for time being)
1) how do i synchronize the time ? do i need to install ntp client ? i see no ntp under the system in the gui window
2) i want to run the routing script that Marius wrote but it say it need a password ? what is the password for ? how do i get it ?
Thanks forward
Ronen 4Z4ZQ
http://www.ronen.org
Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite<http://www.ronen.org/>
www.ronen.orgronen.org (Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite) is hosted by domainavenue.com
Hi there
when Connecting amprnet via openvpn
is it limited to USA only users ?
what is the IP the one that connect get ? is it a special IP assigned for the vpn server ? or the user get his country IP allocation ...and can a block of ip pass ? or only single ip ?
What PC software can be used ? or only linux supported ?
thanks forward
Ronen - 4Z4ZQ
http://www.ronen.org
Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite<http://www.ronen.org/>
www.ronen.orgronen.org (Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite) is hosted by domainavenue.com
