44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3194 discussions

Re: [44net] Cisco router Config File for use as Gateway
by Rob Janssen 23 Feb '16

23 Feb '16

> Of course that following should be a route command for every 44 net gateway No... A separate "interface Tunnel" command for every 44 net gateway, and a separate route command for every subnet routed via those gateways. In all, you will need 324 "interface Tunnel" commands (each with the 5 subcommands) and 512 "route" commands to describe the IPIP network as it is today. Your 1005 router has not enough memory capacity to hold all that. I could understand you when you had a 3800 series or similar. But this one... really no! It has been end-of-life for over 10 years and it really is not up to par for this kind of job. (if any Cisco is, because this is a job not suited for general-purpose routers) Rob

3 2

Re: [44net] route lines from encap file for CISCO Router
by Rob Janssen 22 Feb '16

22 Feb '16

> I relay don't know why you are so objecting a gateway with CISCO > I used to work a lot with Cisco when i have worked at the System team of Israel largest ISP . Because a Cisco is not suitable for setting up an IPIP gateway. It is reliable, but it cannot do this job. It can do other jobs but that is not relevant. You would not recommend a truck when someone asks what car to use to get to the office, either. > Indeed it is much more complicated these days that UCSD dont do anymore 44 net forwarding and a routing line needed for every gateway .. This is crucial. And also, the fact that more people now use dynamic addresses. > I get a very reliable solution with Zero money (my Cisco 1005 was taken from the trash cost me nothing) I recommend you to put it back there... and I think most people here will agree. The Raspberry Pi was developed 15 years after this box, has a 10 times faster CPU, 10 times more memory and uses a lot less power. (and costs less than a 10th of what this thing must have cost when it was new) > However im willing to listen to your advice and test the Rasberry Pi > If there is someone here that can direct me step by step until a working system and then i may consider testing it As I said, it can be found on www.ampr.org More specific, on this page: http://wiki.ampr.org/index.php/Ubuntu_Linux_Gateway_Example I have a Raspberry Pi running as a gateway for over 2.5 years now and it has been without any problem. It has never crashed. Good, because I have never touched it nor ever seen it. It has been mail-ordered and directly sent to a datacenter where it was powered up may 25, 2013 and has worked ever since (of course sometimes rebooted for updates). The above example was written by someone partly drawing from the example configuration I posted on this mailinglist some years ago. > Im not familiar with what have been told about the multi tunnel that a Cisco can not do ... (actually im not understand what the problem or the limitation is ) It is clear from your posted example (btw, it is not a good idea to post Cisco config files because now everyone can log in to your router, the passwords are in the config!). In a Cisco, a Tunnel interface has a "tunnel destination". One. But there are 324 tunnel destinations in the network. So you need 324 tunnel interfaces. In Linux, a single tunnel interface can serve as many destinations as you want, by setting a route with a nexthop that serves the function of the "tunnel destination" in Cisco. Every route has its own nexthop (gateway). And this route table can be updated automatically with ampr-ripd, so you never need to download any encap file. > I know that at least two gateways are running and operating currently with CIsco But most likely not a 1005! Rob

3 2

Re: [44net] route lines from encap file for CISCO Router
by Rob Janssen 22 Feb '16

22 Feb '16

> Hi there Cisco Gateways operators > Has anyone of you a Mechanism that take the encap fiile which is not a Cisco route routing line syntax and makes from it route lines for Cisco ? A Cisco cannot use route lines to operate a multipoint IPIP encap interface like Linux can (and JNOS). Marius has already explained that yesterday. I know it may be a disappointment to you, but your Cisco router really is not a good choice for use as an IPIP amprnet gateway. A Raspberry Pi will be much easier to get going, especially when you are not a software guy. And it will perform better in the real world where some people are on dynamic addresses, because the nice ampr-ripd software that Marius has written will automatically maintain the routes immediately when they are changing, instead of the oldfashioned method of downloading an encap file. (directions can be found how to do this on www.ampr.org, that you just need to copy and modify the IP addresses) Rob

3 2

Pings from 44.151.178.254
by lleachii＠aol.com 22 Feb '16

22 Feb '16

All, Is anyone else receiving pings from 44.515.178.254? Approximately two echo-requests are received every 2-5 minutes. - Lynwood KB3VWG

3 3

Pings from 44.151.178.254
by Rob Janssen 22 Feb '16

22 Feb '16

> Approximately two echo-requests are received every 2-5 minutes. I would not notice them in the 2 megabits/second of crap coming in all day... And certainly not worry. Rob

1 0

Configure tunnel on Pfsense
by Tal Raveh 22 Feb '16

22 Feb '16

Hello, I'm trying to configure my gateway to 44 net on my pfsense FW. I configure GRE tunnel: Remote tunnel endpoint IP address:169.228.66.251 Local tunnel IP address: 44.138.2.254 (my segment is 44.138.2.0 ) Remote tunnel IP address: 44.0.0.0/8 Mobile encapsulation: check (also try to unchecked) The firewall is open but i cannot ping any address on 44 net. any idea? Best Regards, Tal 4z7tal

6 5

ICMP: A small request
by Marius Petrescu 21 Feb '16

21 Feb '16

Since we are trying to tackle connectivity problems a lot of times, could you please enable ICMP replies on your gateways, at least for other 44net requestors? It will certainly not ruin the gateway’s safety and security and would help a lot other OMs. Tnx, Marius, YO2LOJ

4 3

another OpenWrt gateway
by Daftcho Tabakov 21 Feb '16

21 Feb '16

Hi, I have tried to put my gateway in a new box - my tp-link 1043 nd router. I used to use an old pc with Debian for this purpose. I followed this wiki article http://wiki.ampr.org/index.php/Setting_up_a_gateway_on_OpenWRT and i can ping to different 44net IPs from the router's console. The gateway's IP is 44.185.22.1 аnd I would someone to test if it is reachable. I am also a little bit confused how my other devices will connect to the gateway. There was a pptpd server on the pc and it was easy. Now there is another VLAN on the router and I assume that I need to configure some of the lan ports (the switch) to use this new VLAN. This is good for the local connections. Can I use again pptpd and connect to my gateway from Internet like I used to do? -- 73! Daftcho, LZ1DAF

5 9

Re: [44net] DNS cleanup
by Rob Janssen 20 Feb '16

20 Feb '16

Arno Verhoeven wrote: > I just want to add 44.137.24.0/22 to a gateway but noticed that it had > been deleted from my list of allocations. Please don't route regional subnets this way anymore. because then it can be reached both over radio and via the gateway. It is now routed with BGP to PE1RDP who will route it to the access point until arrangements have been made for a more direct routing. IPIP is still available for user subnets when you wish to route a network. > In its place I now have 44.137.27.193/32 in my allocation list. Which is > strange because I never requested it and it is a single host assigned to > someone who has his own gateway. This was probably a copy/paste error made when updating the portal entry. I have corrected it (it belongs to PE5YES) Rob

1 0

Re: [44net] DNS cleanup
by Rob Janssen 20 Feb '16

20 Feb '16

> Prior to flaming me, perhaps you should get your facts straight? > I have done several maintenance jobs and bug fixes on the Portal over the past couple of years, as and when they are reported to me. I’m working on a new feature right now that was requested. > If you have a problem you only need to contact me and ask for assistance, but I am not good at reading minds I’m afraid. > As for the DNS code in the Portal, it has been ready for over a year now, but Brian wanted me to hold off making it live until the current DNS can be cleaned up - hence this push to do just that. > As to your other comments regarding how the portal operates, that’s your opinion, which you are entitled to, but I originally wrote the code based on requirements and input from other folk, I didn’t just “make it up” myself. > Of course, if you want to offer your time re-write some of the code, or add new functionality then please lets talk, I’ve been asking for help on this for some time now, but apart from Tom who kindly provided (and still provides) the Polish translation, no-one else has done anything. And before anyone goes on about “open source” again, the code IS open source to the amateur radio community, just not the general public as it doesn’t need to be, if you want access to the code repository you only need to ask and it will be provided. Chris, I have brought up the topic of (impossibility of) editing subnets a long time ago. I have also reported the problem with registration of existing allocations (the user cannot specify what they want to register, only request a new allocation), and requested a way to delete open requests that cannot be completed. And a few months ago I requested that, facing the impossibility to delete a subnet without also deleting all its children and realizing that adding this may be nontrivial, you manually delete the 44.137.24.0/22 subnet that was erroneously created long ago, without deleting the subnets that are now under it. Apparently in the requirements and input you received the migration of existing allocations was not included. I seem to remember that this has been discussed and apparently it was downplayed as not important, but I don't agree with that. In my opinion, it should be possible to migrate existing allocations to the portal system when the holder desires to do that. Without such functionality, we cannot request all the existing users to register themselves and find out what to do next. I am doing a lot for the local amateur digital network here, and I have to select what other projects I join. I cannot be active in all of them. You have to understand that, contrary to some other areas, we are actively developing and using the network, and we require a system that works for us. So until now we have chosen to not register all the IP allocations via the portal, but only the required minimum that is the IPIP tunneled space, waiting for suitable functionality. In the DL/OE HAMNET the situation is the same, and there they developed their own system, HamnetDB. I understand that it is a spare time effort and other activities have priority, but we cannot live with a system part that keeps us back from progress forever. When there are problems or changes, there has to be some outlook that they will be fixed some day. Does not need to be tomorrow. Maybe you should join efforts with the HamnetDB people to merge the part that now handles the IPIP tunnel system with their system, which in other areas is much much more flexible and more like what we require. (although of course there always are wishlist items, e.g. because of things that are incompatible with our local license system) Rob

2 2

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net