> Subject:
> Re: [44net] AMPRNET katency in VOIP connections ?
> From:
> Brian Kantor <Brian(a)UCSD.Edu>
> Date:
> 05/30/2016 06:25 PM
>
> To:
> AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
>
>
> As far as I know there are no active AMPRNet users in Asia.
> - Brian
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:55:47PM +0200, Rob Janssen wrote:
>> >It would be welcome when a volunteer a lot more east (near Japan/Korea/Thailand)
>> >could setup another set of Echolink relays. This requires a Linux machine
>> >with 5-10 IP addresses available to it, either plain internet or BGP-routed AMPRnet.
A host somewhere in a datacenter with a /28../24 subnet would be OK as well.
There are a couple of Echolink proxies in the far east, e.g. from JH1PGO but I have been unable
to contact the operator.
Rob
> I don't know how they do the job... but as all of you can see,
> also iPAD/iPhone can do it by using my small ampr.org facility :)
> 73, gus
Which repeater is this log from? It is on an AMPRnet address?
Those 44.137.75.24x addresses are our Echolink relays that serve the
mobile users in this part of the world.
It would be welcome when a volunteer a lot more east (near Japan/Korea/Thailand)
could setup another set of Echolink relays. This requires a Linux machine
with 5-10 IP addresses available to it, either plain internet or BGP-routed AMPRnet.
When some 20-200 addresses are available, it can also run Echolink proxies.
A combined proxy/relay server written in C (1000 times more efficient than the
echolink.org Java version) is available on my site:
http://pe1chl.nl.eu.org/Softw/elproxy.tar.gz
Bonus points when you find the race condition that makes it sometimes leak proxy
instances when it is rapidly scanned by a web proxy scanner :-)
Rob
> The easiest way would be to put an Echolink system server on a 44.x.y.z
> IP...
> Anybody working on this?
> This will avoid NAT and proxies, but problem with bandwith and latency
> staies the same if serveral "44 islands" are connected via tunnels.
> You then have to consider the bandwith of the tunnels and the
> performance of the peers.
> Micha, DD2MIC
The main issue is that many users of the system are on plain internet and so the
Echolink repeater has to be on a BGP-routed subnet or the users will all enter
via the UCSD router.
When you are not on a BGP-routed subnet I think it is better to use a proxy to
register using the plain internet address, so at least the user traffic remains
local and does not all go via UCSD.
Rob
> The basic idea would be that AMPR to AMPR traffic is a go since it is
> tunneled directly.
> Public IP to AMPR is a no-go for tunneled networks.
> They have a public Gateway IP anyway, so you should use that one for access
> from the internet.
> Marius, YO2LOJ
When you use Echolink from within AMPRnet but want to use a public IP you should
be very careful how to implement it. Some people configure an Echolink repeater
on an AMPRnet address and then route the traffic to some gateway where this address
is translated using NAT.
However, this does not work correctly! The Echolink repeater will register itself
with the Echolink system server which is on public internet, so the registration
address in the Echolink system is the address of your NAT router.
But internally, the repeater has a 44.x.x.x address so when someone from a 44.x.x.x
address connects the reply will come from the wrong address and the connection
does not go through.
This manifests itself when some other systems are natively on AMPRnet not using NAT.
For example, here in the Netherlands we have several repeaters with a true AMPRnet
address that is BGP routed, and we also run several Echolink proxies and relays
on AMPRnet addresses. In neighboring Germany, the NAT method is often used, where
the repeaters have a 44.x.x.x address but connect to the Echolink server via NAT.
As a result, no connections between the repeaters in these two areas are possible,
and worse: people using our Echolink proxies and relays cannot connect to German
repeaters or users.
It can be solved by not using NAT to translate the Echolink traffic to public
addresses, but instead run an Echolink proxy on the gateway system which converts
the internal AMPRnet address of the Echolink repeater to the public address of
the gateway. Unfortunately only a single proxy can be run per public IP address,
so a "normal" gateway with a single external address can only host a single repeater.
To solve this, a number of proxies can be run e.g. in a datacenter where an IPv4
subnet is available for them (more and more difficult, of course!).
This has now been done in Germany.
The disadvantage of this solution is that all users that are on AMPRnet still connect
to the outside address. On a BGP routed AMPRnet network where no proxies or
translations are used, local users can connect the repeater directly.
Rob
Hi there
Is there anyone that use AMPRNET for connecting VOIP gear (such as echolink alients (or even Digital repeaters (DMR D-STAR etc) and can tell how is the fact that every packet goes back and forth to UCSD router effect the connections ? is the latency not making any problem ?
any comments from anyone that has tried that is appreciated
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
Please contact me off list please.
Thanks much!
--
<rhetorical> Why is it linux users can install and operate *any* version of M$
Windoze but the same can't be said in reverse?</rhetorical>
73 de Brian - N1URO
email: (see above)
Web: http://www.n1uro.net/
Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/
Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org
Linux Amateur Radio Services
axMail-Fax & URONode
http://uronode.sourceforge.nethttp://axmail.sourceforge.net
AmprNet coordinator for:
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, and Vermont.
I've gone through several router changes recently all requiring IP
changes due to changes of MAC. Can a good handful run:
ip route get 44.88.0.1 and show me the commercial IP listed? I've seen
several who run rip listener daemons that have failed to update my IP
(and I do have remote access to these points).
Thanks.
--
<rhetorical> Why is it linux users can install and operate *any* version of M$
Windoze but the same can't be said in reverse?</rhetorical>
73 de Brian - N1URO
email: (see above)
Web: http://www.n1uro.net/
Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/
Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org
Linux Amateur Radio Services
axMail-Fax & URONode
http://uronode.sourceforge.nethttp://axmail.sourceforge.net
AmprNet coordinator for:
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Thanks all who answered.
--
<rhetorical> Why is it linux users can install and operate *any* version of M$
Windoze but the same can't be said in reverse?</rhetorical>
73 de Brian - N1URO
email: (see above)
Web: http://www.n1uro.net/
Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/
Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org
Linux Amateur Radio Services
axMail-Fax & URONode
http://uronode.sourceforge.nethttp://axmail.sourceforge.net
AmprNet coordinator for:
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Hi All,
Sorry for the OT noise, someone emailed me some weeks back (
maybe a couple of months )
looking to link to my Node, I wonder if that person is on this list ?
If so, could you please contact me again, off list.
Thanks ..... Peter ZL2BAU
