44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3198 discussions

Doing IPIP with Ubiquiti ?
by R P 06 Mar '16

06 Mar '16

Hi there I started to config my Bullet2 to be access point for delivering the AMPRNET to the HAMS and saw that there is tunnel and ipip in the commands Does it mean it support by default IPIP tunneling and can serve as Gateway ? I couldn't succeeded to find the correct syntax of the command whatever i have done it gave me error that something is "garbage" Please Advice Thanks Forward Ronen - 4Z4ZQ http://www.ronen.org Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite<http://www.ronen.org/> www.ronen.org ronen.org (Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite) is hosted by domainavenue.com

2 6

GRE over IPsec tunnel in Linux
by Rob Janssen 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

On our gateway system we try to offer tunneling technologies that are easily usable on the equipment the users have available. For example, we deployed OpenVPN because it is so easy for the users to install and use. For use on routers like MikroTik, IPsec is more convenient. We offer IPsec tunnels for subnets and individual addresses, in AH and ESP mode, and the latter also over NAT-T. A number of users have such a tunnel working over NAT-T without problem. We use setkey/racoon. To connect a radio network router that uses BGP to provide it with a fallback in case the radio network is down or when it has not yet been deployed, it is more convenient to use a GRE tunnel over IPsec transport. BGP can then consider the GRE tunnel as an alternative path. This is easily configurable on a MikroTik in ESP mode, but AH is also possible. (AH mode uses less CPU because there is no encryption, only authentication) After deploying some GRE over IPsec transport connections, of course the first site appeared who has the MikroTik router behind a NAT router which cannot be removed. GRE over IPsec transport does not work over NAT. So, I researched the matter and found that there are examples of the use of GRE over IPsec tunnel mode, which in turn can operate over NAT-T (when ESP is used). Of course terribly inefficient in terms of header size, but it should work. Ok, back to the configuration drawing board and implement this on the Linux gateway. I cannot get it to work. The whole IPsec tunnel is established correctly (of course, this already worked), I can add the GRE interface and make it use the tunnel, but when GRE traffic comes in on the IPsec tunnel it does not appear on the GRE interface. Which worked fine when using IPsec transport instead of tunnel. When I ping from the gateway to a connected test router (MikroTik), I can see the pings arrive on the GRE interface there, being returned to the gateway, arrive as ESP-over-UDP, matched in the firewall, sent to an iptables entry that matches on protocol 47, I can even dump them to the log with -j LOG where they appear: Mar 5 18:23:43 gw-44-137 kernel: [17858.781986] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:0c:29:cc:5a:2a:dc:38:e1:f6:2f:f0:08:00 SRC=10.0.1.43 DST=10.11.12.13 LEN=148 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=255 ID=81 DF PROTO=47 The corresponding GRE tunnel with these addresses is present, it works in the outgoing direction, but not incoming. My guess is that it is a problem to match the SRC and DST addresses in an IPsec tunnel packet to the remote and local addresses of a GRE interface, and it never finds its way. Probably the wrong addresses are matched, the outside rather than the inside addresses of the IPsec tunnel. Does anyone have experience with this and know what might be the problem and how it can be fixed? The Linux kernel is version 3.2.0 (Debian Wheezy) in case that matters. Rob

1 0

Making Gateway with OpenWRT with home routers ?
by R P 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

Hi there Has anyone try or doing a Gateway with home router (like TP-LINK) that he has Flashed it to work With OpenWRT ? If yes how is are results ?can it hold the 520 Gateways routes on its memory and still function ? Please Advice Thanks Forward Ronen - 4Z4ZQ http://www.ronen.org Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite<http://www.ronen.org/> www.ronen.org ronen.org (Ronen Pinchooks (4Z4ZQ) WebSite) is hosted by domainavenue.com

1 0

rip daemon update
by Marc, LX1DUC 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

Hello, I added 2 new gateways yesterday afternoon (static public commercial IP addresses, no firewall) but I'm still waiting to receive RIP broadcasts on those IP addresses. I think to remember that new gateway IP addresses are only added to the broadcast list every few hours. How can I verify that my gateways actually did make it into the list? 73 de Marc, LX1DUC

3 5

Making Packet Node with Pi ?
by R P 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

Hi there Is there a way to have a Packet Node with Pi (or any other small size solution that will not require a PC) ? If yes How do I connect TNC (serial port) to PI is the Pi support USB to serial external interface (like the profilic ones) ? Or (preferred) something can be done to do the TNC on Sound card (can be an External sound card that connect to the USB of the PI) Please Advice Thanks Forward Ronen - 4Z4ZQ jttp://www.ronen.org

17 30

Re: [44net] STAs
by Steve L 05 Mar '16

05 Mar '16

For anyone interested in considering a STA you should go to this site: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/forms/STANotificationPage.cfm STAs are only good for six months, but they can be extended by filing another application. The filing fee is $60, and you will need your FRN and password to file it. It is not a simple process, but it is doable. You should have a narrative explanation of what you propose to do in PDF format to upload as an attachment as well as filling out the form completely. ________________________________ >Is this how STAs now work? > >When we were implementing packet radio in Canada in the late seventies, >American hams claimed that the STA process was slow and difficult, the >equivalent to getting an act through Congress that was difficult and slow > >Was this real at the time? Is it better now? > >I may have to go through this to push a new mesh protocol through as STA >(yah, gotta do my local exams first!) and what to know what I'll be up >against. > >- Richard > > >On 3/4/16 10:30 PM, ve1jot wrote: >> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) >> _______________________________________________ >> +1 >> >> On 16-03-04 08:16 PM, kd6oat wrote: >>> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Regarding an STA for higher data rates experimentation: I would think a >>> well written proposal accompanied by the signature of a number of >>> licensed >>> operators willing to participate in experiments would go a long way. >>> Count >>> me in as one who would be willing to sign on. >>> Ken - KD6OAT >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Brian Kantor <Brian at ucsd.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> In the FCC arena, one of the better ways to get technical restrictions >>>> removed is to apply for and operate under an STA - Special Temporary >>>> Authority, a document from the FCC that basically allows you to operate >>>> an exception to the normal rules. Typically the only requirement is >>>> that you make a good case for it technically and that you write up a >>>> report afterwards. In the past, STAs have been the basis for >>>> changes to >>>> the rules. Someone who writes well may want to consider submitting >>>> one to >>>> allow higher data rates based solely on bandwidth and then >>>> experimenting >>>> with it. >>>> >>>> Another possibility is to apply for a Experimental Radio Service >>>> license >>>> which basically allows you to do just about anything if you can make a >>>> good case for it. They used to be a little expensive and they require >>>> a written report on what you found out with your experiments but it >>>> does >>>> allow nearly anything you can think of. >>>> - Brian

2 1

TNC-Pi
by Rob Janssen 04 Mar '16

04 Mar '16

> Beyond what others have mentioned like the TNC-Pi (nice kit), using a $7 > USB soundcard and Direwolf will provide superior decodes. Yes, I wonder why on earth they use a hardware AFSK modem chip in that design... I can see a place for an adapter board that provides PTT keying, possibly isolated audio interface, etc for the Pi, but it should always just do A/D and D/A conversion of the audio and leave the processing to software. That works so much better, and it enables the development of alternative modem designs without having to change the hardware every time. Rob

2 1

Symbol rate
by Steve L 03 Mar '16

03 Mar '16

There were some attempts/news a couple years ago to modernize this: http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-files-symbol-rate-petition-with-fcc http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-s-symbol-rate-petition-nears-top-of-fcc-s-mos… The problem is it takes a very long time for the FCC to act on pretty much anything ham radio related. It took 3 years for the Mototrbo/TDMA rule change. Prior to that I recall the spread spectrum automatic power control rule change took about half that. I agree though, a STA is a good idea to make a case and bring the issue to the forefront. >In the FCC arena, one of the better ways to get technical restrictions >removed is to apply for and operate under an STA - Special Temporary >Authority, a document from the FCC that basically allows you to operate >an exception to the normal rules. Typically the only requirement is >that you make a good case for it technically and that you write up a >report afterwards. In the past, STAs have been the basis for changes to >the rules. Someone who writes well may want to consider submitting one to >allow higher data rates based solely on bandwidth and then experimenting >with it. > >Another possibility is to apply for a Experimental Radio Service license >which basically allows you to do just about anything if you can make a >good case for it. They used to be a little expensive and they require >a written report on what you found out with your experiments but it does >allow nearly anything you can think of. >- Brian > > >On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 07:42:09PM +0200, Demetre - SV1UY wrote: >> Not good for US though, "thanks" to FCC's 300baud symbol rate restrictions of HF.

2 1

DROWN attack
by Rob Janssen 03 Mar '16

03 Mar '16

portal.ampr.org and www.portal.ampr.org are listed (as the only hosts in ampr.org) as vulnerable to the DROWN attack published today. it is not a high-priority issue but it is a good idea to have a look and fix the software and/or settings. Rob* *

8 10

Re: [44net] Making Packet Node with Pi ?
by Assi Friedman 02 Mar '16

02 Mar '16

High speed packet radio collapsed at 9.6 kbps because hams were no longer able to hack modems into surplus land mobile radios. For the first time, one needed full channel equalization and plug and pray no longer worked. That was pretty much the end of packet radio circa mid 1990's. The only thing that survived was APRS which is based on cheap land mobile radios, PIC microcontrollers, and AX25/UI. Assi kk7kx -----Original Message----- From: 44Net [mailto:44net-bounces+assi=kiloxray.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Phillips Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 2:19 PM To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: [44net] Making Packet Node with Pi ? (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ According to the TNC-X website, John Hansen claims to be working on a 9K6 modem but that was quite a few years back and nothing has been heard since. I'd LOVE a 9K6+++ modem but they just don;t seem to be available. I've looked at quite a few of the old designs that came out of German and Slovenia back in the late 90's and early 2K's. They are either no longer available, require an SCC card to provide clocks etc, have no driver support any more or require firmware which is unavailable. Whilst the soundcard road is somewhat acceptable, a hardware modem can't be beat.. Mark NI2O/G7LTT

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net