44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

1 participants
3194 discussions

44.133.48.66 !!!
by Maiko Langelaar 12 Apr '14

12 Apr '14

Good afternoon, It would see that 44.133.48.66 is popping, snmpding, and other amounts of traffic from time to time to various ampr.org systems and doing so *without warning* type of thing. I just got hit with a bunch of SNMP requests, others have been hit with POP requests. Can anyone find out who the owner of that particular system or network is, so that I can contact the entity or person. Or perhaps a bit more draconian, can someone deal with it. Thanks in advance. Maiko Langelaar VE4KLM

4 5

ampr-ripd for openwrt
by Rob Janssen 12 Apr '14

12 Apr '14

Does someone have a binary of ampr-ripd for openwrt available on the net? It would save the effort of gearing up a development environment only to compile this little program... Rob

2 1

Re: [44net] Portal doesn't allow IPIP anycast via 44net
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 12 Apr '14

12 Apr '14

I was guessing most folks who run NOS these days do it on top of Linux. I don't have a problem with anyone who still wants to run it. So if you still doing the routing (encap stuff) on the NOS side, maybe its time to re think that. Just point the NOS default routes to the Linux and let it do what it does best. Doing the routing on the NOS side of things seems a bit backwards these days (cough encap.txt) Of course you cannot do that if you are still running NOS on an old DOS box. So is that why we still export the route addprivate nos format stuff on the portal? >> Alright how many people are still running some sort of NOS on DOS? >> >> Time to move forward folks and use the excellent routing capabilities of Linux. >> And let those who still need it the old way learn the pain of >> conversion. Give them a reason to upgrade/ move forward. >> >> </Off my soap box> >Or we can go the other way... Turn off all these fancy routers and >protocols and turn the radios back on... We never had better RF >technology available for cheap and I don't see much use being made of >it.. > >A CONVERS session on JNOS on a DOS box at 1200 baud can be more >'special' then thousands of words on these commercial infrastructure >systems with canned tools... > >Bill, WA7NWP > >PS. New toys arrived this week and with a bit of luck they'll be on >the air. 9k6 (and maybe much much more) in the 440 band for $80 a >side - just plug the USB into a RPI or whatever... ________________________________

1 0

Wiki issues
by Neil Johnson 12 Apr '14

12 Apr '14

I can see the main page, but if I click on a link the following page displays no text. -Neil -- Neil Johnson http://erudicon.com

2 2

Re: [44net] Portal doesn't allow IPIP anycast via 44net
by Bryan Fields 11 Apr '14

11 Apr '14

On 4/11/14, 12:26 PM, lleachii(a)aol.com wrote: > TOS section 7c requires him to provide an AMPRNet connection for AMPR > devices local to him; but not necessarily via rip44. Since its not valid at > this time to tunnel to a 44subnet via a 44 address, I don't see how he's in > compliance (save via RF, which is their local AMPRNet anyway). Where would hamradio be with out armchair lawyers? I love this hobby. If he's using 44net space and announcing it to the internet via BGP he is providing access to the users behind his BGP router that have AMPRnet addresses. Sure they may not have access to the rest of AMPRnet via the IPIP routes, but that's optional. I'd even venture to guess most hams on his system won't care/know that it's missing the IPIP tunnels. People using AMPRnet space in BGP are most likely concerned with providing access to the internet via ham radio, not accessing slow 9600 baud links from the internet. > Bart also mentioned: > >>>>> It allows our microwave network to remain connected to the rest of >>>>> AMPRnet as long as we have at least 1 ISP that isn't dead. > **The problem would also solved if he announces 209.189.196.68/32 on both > ISP connections.** A /32 is going to be route filtered, and it's not his IP space, it's a /30 or /31 from his upstream BGP peer. So no, this is not possible. The entire *IDEA* of BGP is to allow you to control your own redundancy and peering to the routing table. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

3 2

Re: [44net] Portal doesn't allow IPIP anycast via 44net
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 11 Apr '14

11 Apr '14

Alright how many people are still running some sort of NOS on DOS? Time to move forward folks and use the excellent routing capabilities of Linux. Every time I look at the encap.txt and see stuff like: route addprivate 44.129/16 encap 118.22.1.194 I ask myself why do we still export is this way. I say export it as: ip route add 44.129.0.0/16 via 118.22.1.194 dev tunl0 onlink And let those who still need it the old way learn the pain of conversion. Give them a reason to upgrade/ move forward. </Off my soap box> ---- Quote--- Bart, Don brought up some good points. In addition: - non Linux-kernel routers (e.g. JNOS and TNOS) would not be able to route to you as they would need to be reprogrammed and recompiled (FYI, JNOS and TNOS is the most commonly used AMPR Network OS)

2 1

NANOG 61 June 2-4
by Bryan Fields 11 Apr '14

11 Apr '14

https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog61/home I'll be here, and Tim Osbourn W7RSZ as well. Is there anyone else going? I'd enjoy having a dinner or lunch breakout to meet with some of the AMPRnet users at NANOG. Post if you're going and we'll arrange something if we have some interest. 73's -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

4 3

Re: [44net] Portal doesn't allow IPIP anycast via 44net
by Bryan Fields 11 Apr '14

11 Apr '14

On 4/11/14, 11:37 AM, lleachii(a)aol.com wrote: > It's much easier, and doesn't require a total reconfiguration of AMPR to > simply have Bart run a 44GW speaking rip 44 using his Public IP address as > the GWip - be advised that he is required to do so under the Terms of > Service: That's a heck of a jump in logic. I see nothing in there requiring anyone to run rip44d. All it means is you need have the ability of supplying connectivity to other hams in your area out of your subnet. I'm doing this via GRE and VPN dialers. I have little interest in connecting to the rest of AMPRnet hosts who are not rotatable in the global table. My interest is supplying access over RF using the AMPR space and setting up routed redundant multi-megabit links. What AMPRnet has running now is akin to the GRX network IMO. It's private with one interconnection to the internet. 73's -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

1 0

Re: [44net] AMPRNet BGP vs non-BGP routing
by Bryan Fields 11 Apr '14

11 Apr '14

On 4/11/14, 11:32 AM, Bart Kus wrote: > It allows our microwave network to remain connected to the rest of > AMPRnet as long as we have at least 1 ISP that isn't dead. The > microwave network peers with the Internet at 2 different points at > present, but more points will come in the future. It's a robustness > improvement in the face of partial failures, like in a natural disaster > when an ISP's fiber gets torn or their building collapses. So this is a hack to correct for the hack of AMPRnet IPIP tunnels. Argh, it makes my head hurt. If AMPRnet was treated like any other network on the internet, this problem would go away. At worst anyone not redundantly connected to the global internet would lose connectivity if their small gateway went down. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

2 1

Re: [44net] AMPRNet BGP vs non-BGP routing (was: Portal doesn't allow IPIP anycast via 44net)
by Brian Kantor 11 Apr '14

11 Apr '14

As far as I know, because of routing restrictions on the amprgw network connectivity, hosts on BGP-announced subnets of 44/8 will be unable to communicate with hosts on tunnel-routed subnets of 44/8 unless the BGP-announced subnet also runs a listed tunnel router gateway with a non-44/8 gateway address. This is because the building-level router one hop upstream from amprgw has a fixed route directing all 44/8 traffic to amprgw. This building-level router does not speak BGP and so cannot learn about BGP-announced subnets of 44/8. This is a historical artifact; it predates the availability of BGP-announced 44/8 subnets by many years. We hope to change this topology in the future to connectivity with the border router that DOES speak BGP, but indications are that that change will not be able to be done soon. In the meantime, gateway tunnel routers with a non-44 gateway address (that's all of them, except HamWan's proposed gateway) are the workaround to this restriction. I'm sorry for this difficulty but it's what we're stuck with for now. - Brian

6 12

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net