44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

2 participants
3201 discussions

Re: [44net] Testers/Consideration/Inquiry - Coordinating the Private AS Numbers
by Assi Friedman 26 Mar '16

26 Mar '16

There is a mechanism, it's the point to point tunnels. Most gateways support that. The routing table is designed to match for point to point gateways before going to the default AMPR gateway at UCSD. >From a configuration perspective, the easy configuration approach is to first route everything through UCSD to make sure one has mastered local gateway tunneling configuration. Then the local configuration should be expanded to perform direct tunneling to AMPR hosts/gateways and the UCSD gateway should be the lowest priority route. Assi -----Original Message----- From: 44Net [mailto:44net-bounces+assi=kiloxray.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of R P Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 9:18 AM To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: [44net] Testers/Consideration/Inquiry - Coordinating the Private AS Numbers (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ ..snip... If there was a mechanism to allow the traffic to go to any local 44 gateway and then the packet will go to the local Internet the trip would be much shorter but i dont know how it can be done these days that every IPS block Source 44 Net address from passing through as for 44 net to 44 net trafic it look ok because it tunnel direct to the gateway and not passing through AMPRGW the only thing I can think off is to put a secondary portal for redundancy . Ronen - 4Z4ZQ http://www.ronen.org

1 0

Re: [44net] Testers/Consideration/Inquiry - Coordinating the Private AS Numbers
by Rob Janssen 26 Mar '16

26 Mar '16

> - I'm not certain how one can reach portal.ampr.org before establishing > an Internet connection first Of course portal.ampr.org should be run on a net-44 address and preferably have radio connectivity, but for reasons unknown to me it isn't. As the worldwide AMPRnet over radio is just a dream, it would not be likely that everyone would be able to reach that system without internet any day. You would need internet anyway to search and visit a webshop to buy the equipment you need to be on radio... > - You stated: "This is not a task of AMPRGR but of portal.ampr.org..." > The Portal is simply a backend to configure AMPRGW itself; and > specifically in the case of IPIP tunnels using RIP44. In the future it > plans to add DNS functionality, but keep in mind, this is just merely a > website I am bringing this up only because I get the feeling that you don't understand the topology of the network and the components involved very well. The title of your initial message is also very indicative of that. What you brought up has zero to do with AS numbers and the issue of coordinating AS numbers was already handled to everyone's satisfaction a couple of months ago. > - I'm not sure how a DNS zone file relates to real-time connectivity to > a network Not to the connectivity directly, but certainly to the usability. It appears that one of your goals is to use AMPRnet without internet connection and that is not really practical when you don't have a DNS on it. There is a DNS server 44.0.0.1 but for most people it will be unreachable when they don't have some internet tunnel. > - AMPRGW is not the ideal route to all subnets because it is not the > most geographically closest AMPRNet node with an Internet connection. If > other nodes were setup in the manner I'd like to test, any node willing > to establish a session could potentially be a closer node I advise you to study the network topology before proposing to change it. Traffic to another amprnet node does NOT flow through AMPRGW. > - You note again "we have a full mesh:" ***Then please test by pinging > MY gateway VIA N1URO's***. In your testing, do not connect directly to > me or use AMPRGW. I will DOWN my tunl0 interface and only connect to > another AMPR station with AMPRGW connectivity - via RF or over a VPN > connection. > + it's my understanding this would fail - STAR > + you imply that it should work - MESH This is not what defines a star versus a mesh. When you disconnect yourself from the mesh and do not update the routing to be reachable via someone else's connection, of course you will be unreachable. What makes it a mesh is that the reliance on AMPRGW that you bring forward all the time IS NOT THERE. The pings I send to your gateway directly travel from my internet connection to yours, NOT via AMPRGW. We use a multi-level subnet system here. We route the entire country subnet to a single gateway which has radio and VPN connectivity to users in the country. Those users can also have their own IPIP gateway when they like. In that case the traffic for their subnet will flow directly to them, but when they stop that the traffic will go to our gateway and then to them via radio. Of course there is no "alive" detection in the current IPIP gateway system, so a route will not disappear from the announcements just because the internet connection of that gateway is broken. So you will have to disable the gateway first (functionality that has been removed from the portal.ampr.org system for reasons totally unclear to me, you now just have to delete the subnets) Rob

1 0

Uncle "google" in hamradio network ?
by Waldek Waldek 26 Mar '16

26 Mar '16

Hi, Many years ago we used as main application the terminal to the connections of the BBS Currently we use modern solutions in hamradio network such as WIFI and main application which we use is web browser to see many WWW pages On our club www page we have small collections urls to others http://sp2pmk.ampr.org but it is not good solution In Europe we have a system with a database of web sites, search engines based on yacy: http://search.db0sda.ampr.org/ http://web.oe2xzr.ampr.at/ http://44.134.190.114/lsp_map.cgi etc How to find others www pages outside Europe for examaple in US or others places Anybody know or exist similar solution in US ? It will be fine to travel via 44/8 network and see and read other www hamradio pages individual or club station. Sometimes we can find on hamradio amprnet/hamnet www pages interesting information or solution. -- Waldek sp2ong

2 2

Re: [44net] Uncle "google" in hamradio network ?
by Rob Janssen 26 Mar '16

26 Mar '16

> I just recently completed an nmap of the routed portions: > http://kb9mwr.ampr.org/public/nmap/030516routed.txt <http://kb9mwr.ampr.org/public/nmap/030516routed.txt> > http://kb9mwr.ampr.org/public/nmap/030516nmap.txt <http://kb9mwr.ampr.org/public/nmap/030516nmap.txt> You have crashed my instance of NET (and that of a friend) several times with this action. It is normally runs for months on end until I need to reboot the machine, but in that case it just crashes. I know it must be a bug somewhere in the years old naive TCP implementation but I have not been able to locate it yet. Until then, I have just blocked you in the firewall. Just to let you know that actions like this (and the one Ronen proposed) *do* cause damage to others. Rob

1 0

Re: [44net] was Uncle "google" in hamradio network ? Repeater linking
by Steve L 25 Mar '16

25 Mar '16

There isn't a whole lot of entries in the wiki services list. I am not sure how many net 44 users are on this list and or know about that. I personally find wiki markup coding a pain as its not native to me. Another thing is maybe some people would rather share service details after a portal login rather than somewhere that gets scraped by google. To me it sort of make sense to briefly explain what your doing in the network allocation area and/or gateway areas of the portal. In my quest, one thing that caught my eye was this Michigan repeater linking/microwave project. Mostly because they are closer to me in Wisconsin. https://w8cmn.net/tiki-index.php?page=Mi6WAN-MAIN I recall someone on this list no that long ago from overseas was doing a similar project with Asterisk/app_rpt and 802.11. Elsewhere (reddit/slashdot) I recently read about the Mid-Atlantic IP Network ( I think they aren't using 44net though), same type of thing. I like the idea, and have been looking to try the Asterisk/Allstar RTCM to add a voted receive site, but transported over a microwave IP link. We just did a tower climb today here in Wisconsin and replaced some damaged 802.11 gear. And had an offer from a broadcast group for some tower space. I am hoping 2016 is the year things take off a bit locally. Steve

2 1

Re: [44net] Uncle "google" in hamradio network ?
by Steve L 25 Mar '16

25 Mar '16

Thanks for the info. Looks like the info I need to use it for our purposes. Some time back there was a resource list that Jim Fuller maintained that was handy to list what was all out there. >HiHi >Not the whole one, for shure. >Just your "local area" and then report to the yacy network. > >Have a look here after google translated it for you ;-) >http://www.amateurfunk-wiki.de/index.php/Suchmaschine > >73 >2MIC

2 1

Re: [44net] Uncle "google" in hamradio network ?
by Steve L 25 Mar '16

25 Mar '16

I just recently completed an nmap of the routed portions: http://kb9mwr.ampr.org/public/nmap/030516routed.txt http://kb9mwr.ampr.org/public/nmap/030516nmap.txt I did the same thing a few years back but there was that IPIP,<-> BGP problem I too have yacy installed. I just started it back up. I am not to familiar with it, how do it get it to crawl the amprnet?

3 2

Re: [44net] Uncle "google" in hamradio network ?
by Steve L 25 Mar '16

25 Mar '16

No, and I'll admit that. That is why I'd like to hear more about how to configure yacy. But since there isn't a search engine or otherwise way yet to get an idea what is on the amprnet and what people are doing on the address space, I couldn't really think of any other way. The links below will only be active for a short time, as it's really only meant for 44net folks to get an idea. Steve >> http://kb9mwr.ampr.org/public/nmap/030516routed.txt >> http://kb9mwr.ampr.org/public/nmap/030516nmap.txt > >> I am not to familiar with it, how do it get it to crawl the amprnet? > >Is this wise? >- Brian

1 0

Re: [44net] Testers/Consideration/Inquiry - Coordinating the Private AS Numbers
by Rob Janssen 25 Mar '16

25 Mar '16

I don't understand your consideration of "moving from a star to a mesh". We ALREADY have a mesh! There is no load to be removed from AMPRGW other than the routing from/to internet for those that are not directly BGP routed on internet. When you want a solution for the "single point of failure" for RIP announcements, the simple solution would be to deploy a second RIP annoucer elsewhere, that sends the same information as AMPRGW, and takes over when AMPRGW does not send those announcements. Of course it still needs to be fed with the same topology information, so it could be tricky to get a solution that does not have any single point of failure, but your solution of doing BGP over tunnels instead has such information embedded in the static configuration of all the peers, which is even more difficult to manage. So it is not really clear to me what such a change really would achieve what we do not already have. What is the status of usage of AMPRnet addresses in HSMM? In the past they used RFC1918 addresses that were automatically allocated. I believe newer versions can use static addresses that could als well be from NET-44. Is this already in wide use? Rob

2 1

Re: [44net] Testers/Consideration/Inquiry - Coordinating the Private AS Numbers
by Rob Janssen 25 Mar '16

25 Mar '16

> a.) then how would a new or offline IPIP station connect if AMPRGW were DOWN at the time? This is not a task of AMPRGR but of portal.ampr.org > b.) then how do I get routes from AMPRNet without a DIRECT CONNECTION tunl0 connection to AMPRGW? As I wrote is is possible to deploy a second system that does the RIP announcements > c.) what if I can directly reach 2 or more AMPR subnets (but not the Internet)? We already have a large network of radiolinks running here in Europe, and I think also in some other areas of the world. It does not rely much on the internet, except for DNS. I download the ampr.org DNS zonefile daily so I have it available when we are offline. > a.) AMPRGW is currently the only route announcer (but you address that elsewhere) I think it is important because it is the only weak spot I can see. > b.) Next, it's not the ideal route to all subnets Why not? > c.) this solution addresses the possibility of redundancy to other subnets, as well as AMPRGW I don't understand. There already is full redundancy. We have a full mesh. > In planning, it would probably be an alternative to IPIP, and not a replacement. Ideally, there could be a few regional gateways, other stations connecting to one or more regional gateway and to other end-user gateways. That is how we run the network here. What is your proposed change? Rob

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net