At 08:37 AM 04/01/14, you wrote:
>(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>_______________________________________________
>Somethings not right ...
>
>I did a traceroute to 44.68.52.1 and 44.68.52.254 and this is what I
>received for both:
< ... SNIP ... >
>The last hop (88.149.154.126) is address space in Italy ?
Interesting... 88.149.x.x addresses have been trying to hack me and keep
getting banned.
Although, not specifically that address.
Wm Lewis (KG6BAJ)
AMPR Net IP Address Coordinator - Northern and Central California Regions
(A 100% Volunteer Group)
(530) 263-1595 (Home/Office)
______________________________________________
----------
This message is for the designated recipient only and MAY CONTAIN
PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete the original. Any other use of this E-mail is prohibited.
On 3/31/14, 4:04 PM, Steve Wright wrote:
> Can we please make a decision on this and move ahead?
>
> I'd like to know, one way or the other, because I sure aint interested in
> all this private 44net stuff..
>
> Is 44net routable or private?
I vote routeable. My /24 is announced, can't say I really work that hard to
keep my tunnels updated.
I use my space to provide services to amateur radio and the internet. I just
lit up an Allstar RTCM node and asterisk server for simulcast recently.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
If we give 44/8 back, then those of us routing 44 traffic over RF to other
44 stations get screwed, now don't we.
:/
44/8 is for amateur radio only. There are plenty of us using it.
I have ports to both other 44 stations, as well as BPQ stations that can't
use it.
Beside, no one is mandating any station use it in their configurations.
The beauty of *you* not wanting to use it is..... You don't have to.
The beauty of *me* wanting to use it is.... I get to.
Bill
KG6BAJ
At 01:04 PM 03/31/14, you wrote:
>(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
>_______________________________________________
> > If this is, " a hack to backbone a semi-private network on top of the
> > public internet" then why do we need 44/8? Please explain why 10/8 would
> > not work just as well?
> >
> >[....] if it's not going to be routable then why do we need 44/8? use
> > RFC1918 space and give 44/8 back. [...] We could attract many
> > into this hobby if we'd simply offer to be the teachers of the IP
> > networking craft using standards based methods used by everyone else
>across
> > the internet.
> >
>
>PRECISELY.
>
>Can we please make a decision on this and move ahead?
>
>I'd like to know, one way or the other, because I sure aint interested in
>all this private 44net stuff..
>
>Is 44net routable or private?
>
>
>
>Steve
>
Screenshot
This network (44.24.240.0/20) is available via both 209.189.196.68 and
198.178.136.80. However, I'm unable to list more than one point of
contact. I realize this was probably a design decision at some point,
but it doesn't seem like a good idea from a redundancy perspective.
--Bart
PS: If you're wondering why the image looks like crap, it's to satisfy
the puny 32kB message size limit of the list.
I've been told that one can use iptables (presumably the mangle table) to
mark packets inbound on different interfaces and then use iproute2 to send
the responses back out the same interface. Is anyone doing this and, if so,
would you be willing to share how you do that?
Thanks,
Michael
N6MEF
It would seem to me that while due to the fact we are tunneling most
everything we may have a logical full mesh but far from a physical full
mesh. What does a tunneled logical full mesh really accomplish for us
other than making things all the more complicated? Wouldn't traditional
peering and routing done "the normal way" be much easier? I can see a
valid place for nailing up vpn links and various tunnels, i.e. last mile
access and tying islands together though something other than IPIP with
links negotiated on a peering basis as needed, but what does a full logical
mesh of tunnels give us? It seems that since it's built of tunnels and
thus virtual rather than physical we just unnecessarily complicate the mess
wherein the tunneled traffic and the tunnels themselves end up taking
multiple and somewhat changing hops to get from one end to another. IP was
designed such that I could hand a packet off and basically go, "ok, now
it's your problem to deliver it (on a best effort basis)", thus I shouldn't
need to know every conceivable route to every conceivable endpoint. What
prevents us from using it that way?
Eric
AF6EP
> I've created a basic tutorial on the wiki for setting up a Ubuntu
> Server gateway.
>
Good work!
I'd be keen to help with a wiki page on a Mikrotik connection example. I
have hardware installed, and also have Kamikazi running on MetaROUTER if
anyone wants to fiddle with it.
Steve
--
Meshnetworks - Rangitaiki Plains Rural Broadband Internet Providers
+64 21 040 5067
Weirdness:
I don't have a DNS entry for 44.92.21.1.80, as it is non existant on
the network I feed. So how is it that I get constant activity from
it?
Does anyone else get a lot of traffic from that IP address?
tcpdump -vvv -s0 -n proto ipencap
9515068, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
195.146.144.9.80 > 44.92.21.1.80: Flags [S], cksum 0x0a01 (correct), seq 186
tcpdump -i eth0 -vvv host amprgw.sysnet.ucsd.edu or ip proto \\icmp
amprgw.sysnet.ucsd.edu > CPE-75-87-213-229.new.res.rr.com: IP (tos
0x0, ttl 81, id 33817, offset 0, flags [DF], proto TCP (6), length 52)
sme.sk.http > hsmm-gw.kb9mwr.ampr.org.http: Flags [S], cksum
0xdff7 (correct), seq 1415087399, win 8192, options [mss
1460,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0
Hey list,
I'd love to document some of the recent discussion (private 44net space?
rip vs encap? encap location?) but I can't edit any pages without being
authenticated it seems. On top of that, there is no link to the
registration URL.
When I try to go to the registration URL (
http://wiki.ampr.org/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup ), I get
the error "You do not have permission to create this user account".
So, I'd love to help start documenting this stuff, but seems like I'll need
some help myself first.
--
Ryan Turner
