44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

2 participants
3201 discussions

Re: [44net] routable or private?
by Steve Wright 03 Apr '14

03 Apr '14

> If the answer to either of the above is "yes", then there is the potential > for traffic which violates radio licensing laws to be carried by radio. And > after all, I thought RADIO was what 44-net was supposed to be about? No, 44net is a PUBLIC IP address range. There are plenty of PRIVATE IP ranges that we can freely and arbitrarily use without care or regard whatsoever, and the 10/8 network is large enough for hams to build a substantial world-wide network without further ado. Why my main concern is with all this 44net stuff, and what we're seeing a lot of, is peoples' scaremongering and huge propensity to self-regulate and self-police to the absurd, resulting in the 44net never being any more than another reason to have an argument on some forum and then sit back on our arse and do nothing whatsoever. If this is actually going to be the case then my recommendation would be to find some facebook group or other forum to put ones' efforts into, and see if you might stir up some irrational waste-of-time argument there, because doing it in a 44net forum is likely to, at the very least, cause quite a few people to just give up, and at the very worst, have someone very concisely and perhaps not so politely explain the problem to you. Steve

14 16

Re: [44net] routable or private?
by William Lewis 01 Apr '14

01 Apr '14

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.

2 2

Re: [44net] routable or private?
by Bryan Fields 31 Mar '14

31 Mar '14

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

2 1

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

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net