Interesting reading!
I too would like to see a routed approach - all this clumsy tunnelling
house of cards junk is never going to be reliable.
The overly-managed approach doesn't help either. It needs to be far
simpler to manage a /24 than what we have now. All the legal speak in that
"contract" can get binned too.
As far as outdoor links are concerned - why do you not use the Ubiquiti
2.4,3.3, and 5.8Ghz gear? It goes really really over long distances even
without external amps, and will happily run in the ham bands.
Steve
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, <44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> wrote:
> Send 44Net mailing list submissions to
> 44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 44net-owner(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of 44Net digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: amprnet portal (Bryan Fields)
> 2. Re: amprnet portal (kb9mwr(a)gmail.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:09:57 -0500
> From: Bryan Fields <Bryan(a)bryanfields.net>
> To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [44net] amprnet portal
> Message-ID: <52E595C5.9090303(a)bryanfields.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 1/26/14 2:20 PM, kb9mwr(a)gmail.com wrote:
> > It would be interesting to hear more about how those other BGP
> > announced chunks of 44net are using the space.
> My segment 44.98.254.0/24 is being used for one PtP data link now, and
> some
> asterisk based repeater controllers.
> I have email for kb9mci.net on it (but need to get SWIP/PTR going Brian
> ;).
>
> My intent is to fire up some of the doodle labs 23cm link cards as we get
> another repeater site and link it over on that space. As this grows over
> the
> next couple years it will be quite a high speed data network with VoIP as
> the
> primary purpose. Doing all the RF links in the ham bands is part of the
> fun.
> (anyone have a OFDM rated 20-30 watt amp for 23cm that's not $2k?)
>
> One of the pet peeves I've have is not being able to access the other AMPR
> net
> space with out tunnels. I think tunnels are just an ugly hack IMO. I'd
> like
> to see us transition into more of a regionally routed network, rather than
> the
> few BGP nets and UCSD gateway. Well aware of how much time this would take
> I'm not ready to write up a proposal just yet (ampRFC?).
>
> If anyone wants a subnet I'd be happy to route it to you, as I'm not using
> the
> whole /24 and won't be for some time. Global routing policies being what
> they
> are, a /24 is the smallest subnet you can announce.
>
> My interest lies in high speed networks, and see little to no value in 9600
> baud IP networks in 2014 :)
>
> 73's
>
> --
> Bryan Fields
>
> 727-409-1194 - Voice
> 727-214-2508 - Fax
> http://bryanfields.net
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:06:01 -0600
> From: kb9mwr(a)gmail.com
> To: "44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu" <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [44net] amprnet portal
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAK4XxyT5f_UxV5CpzHRX9O0QEtUbGxD0txexZHGRDQTTdA_9yg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Brian,
>
> Interesting, thanks for sharing.
>
> Amplifiers are something I really think the ham community needs to think
> about.
>
> They exist, but like you say, but at outrageous prices. i.e.:
>
> http://www.shireeninc.com/300-500mhz-20-watts-outdoor-amplifier/
>
> I have been reading Dubus magazine (focused on microwave), hoping to
> read more data oriented construction articles.
>
> I am much in the same line of thinking. 1200 and 9600 is really not
> worth re-deploying in 2014. The regulatory landscape needs some major
> changes so that manufactures can put something different in the hands
> of many.
>
> Steve
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 44Net mailing list
> 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
> http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
>
>
> End of 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19
> ************************************
>
--
Meshnetworks - Rangitaiki Plains Rural Broadband Internet Providers
+64 21 040 5067
44net-request(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu wrote:
> I have had a couple requests to tailor my attempt to document setting
> up a Linux AMPRNet gateway for the Raspberry Pi.
>
> I've just recently purchased a Pi and have been looking over the
> documentation, and I don't think it will work for what I'm trying to
> document.
I have a quite simple setup for a Raspberry Pi as a Linux AMPRnet gateway,
but in my experience everyone's setup is different and what works fine for me
is not what other people want to use.
My Raspberry Pi is in a datacenter so no NAT worries. It terminates all tunnels
(IPIP) and users Marius' RIP daemon for automatic routing. This works very
well after we have ironed out some problems.
It also runs a local copy of KA9Q NET which I access from home via "screen", and
it forwards a subnet of 44 adresses via an IPsec tunnel to my home machine,
where several of these addresses are used to provide other services (e.g. WWW).
The setup basically only brings up tunl0 and assigns an address, sets up a
separate route table and rules for net-44, manually inserts a couple of routes
and then fires up the ampr-ripd. Maybe 10 lines of bash code, that is all.
As I wrote, the setup is very simple and the details vary enough for it to be less
useful to others than I thought. I forwarded my complete config to a fellow
amateur who has a Raspberry Pi as well, ready for him to load it, but he never
did that and somehow prefers to build it again for himself. And probably that
is better anyway, as most of the fun of building such a thing is the studying
of the matter and the debugging.
Tinkering with the Raspberry Pi and networking is like homebrewing, copying an
existing configuration is like buying a shiny new Icom.
Rob
--- Snip ---
One of the major drawbacks to the IPIP tunnels used to transport
AMPRNet data is that they don't work when you are using Network
Address Translation (NAT).
--- Snip ---
I disagree. As long as protocol 4 is forwarded (or just use DMZ) it works fine.
I use 192.168.1.X on all my normal stuff at home, and my Ras Pi
running rip44d has a an address of 192.168.1.2. In my main home
router I point DMZ to that address of the Pi. I use a single USB
dongle and that interface has a 44.92.X.X address and connects to some
Ubiquiti gear. Works fine.
http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/wapr/tcpip/rip44d.htmlhttp://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/wapr/tcpip/
Ok what are people actually DOING over their Internet-connected 44 radio
net?
VOIP? APRS? Video links? Repeater linking? IP cameras? Remote bases?
Any innovative suggestions?
Steve
--
Meshnetworks - Rangitaiki Plains Rural Broadband Internet Providers
+64 21 040 5067
> From: "Marius Petrescu" <marius(a)yo2loj.ro>
> Why do you need to get off this list to do it another way?
> That is the whole idea of this list: Find new ways, and share your ideas.
> Boldly go where no one has gone before :-)
Sorry, I received a very discouraging email from a list member. I'll go
back to my usual tasks for a while.
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.
Can someone tell me if the encap.txt file is still available in the portal? I was looking for it today and cannot seem to find it.
Thanks
Jesse - WC3XS
On 3/24/14, 7:22 PM, Robbie De Lise wrote:
> Each link you setup between 2 nodes in the mesh needs a /30.
> You can get 64 /30's in a /24.
/31's are better :)
http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3021.txt
73's
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
On 3/22/14, 11:14 AM, Geoff Joy wrote:
> What I see above from both of you is "this is a mess, someone needs to
> clean it up, but that someone isn't going to be me". I must boldly
> state that if you have the time to discern a problem and criticize a
> state of affairs, you have the time to take ownership of that problem
> and fix it.
+1
I've said there are numerous things I don't care for with the way 44net is
used and deployed (not a personal attack :).
I've also mentioned I don't have the time to write up proposals and do stuff
to change it. As such I'm not going to bitch about it (or at least try not to).
I'd be happy to start a working group if I have some help, but between my day
job, building a simulcast repeater system, and doing the paperwork to get our
repeater group to to be 501c3 non-profit I just don't have the time to do it
all myself. I for one would like to get away from the IPIP encap, and get
more distributed interconnects to the internet for 44/8.
73's
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
