44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

4 participants
3198 discussions

Re: [44net] routable or private?
by William Lewis 31 Mar '14

31 Mar '14

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 >

2 1

Can't add redundant AMPR gateway to portal
by Bart Kus 31 Mar '14

31 Mar '14

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.

11 29

marking and iproute2
by Michael E Fox - N6MEF 31 Mar '14

31 Mar '14

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

1 0

isn't 44net being a "full mesh" a misnomer? Is it even necessary?
by Eric Fort 31 Mar '14

31 Mar '14

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

8 12

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 61
by Steve Wright 31 Mar '14

31 Mar '14

> 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

2 1

Re: [44net] 195.146.144.9.80 oddness
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 30 Mar '14

30 Mar '14

Marius, Correct you are. Dumb mistake on my part. Happens when you have been up all night apparently.

1 0

195.146.144.9.80 oddness
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 30 Mar '14

30 Mar '14

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

2 2

Wiki User Registration Impossible?
by Ryan Elliott Turner 29 Mar '14

29 Mar '14

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

3 3

44Net Private addressing
by Rod Ekholm 29 Mar '14

29 Mar '14

I found a statement on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet that says: 44.128.0.0/16[edit<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AMPRNet&action=edit&section=2> ] *44.128.x.x* is the testing subnet and consists of 65,536 (216) addresses. Much akin to 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 169.254.0.0/16 or 192.168.0.0/16, this is an unroutable private IP block<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network>. Connectivity to the rest of the network should be given through router gateways <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_(telecommunications)> much as one would do with Network address translation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation> in any other private IP block. Is this truly the case? When I look at the portal, this /16 would be towards the end of the US allocations, and just before the Japan allocations. If this is not true, do we have a Private block in the 44/8 for use that is not routable? -- Rod Ekholm kc7aad(a)gmail.com

4 3

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19
by Steve Wright 26 Mar '14

26 Mar '14

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

13 19

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net