44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3196 discussions

44.12.3.97 please stop UDP 5678
by Michael E Fox - N6MEF 02 Feb '14

02 Feb '14

Whoever has IP 44.12.3.97, please stop sending UDP 5678 to 255.255.255.255. I'm getting this every single minute. Thanks, Michael N6MEF

7 8

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 24
by Steve Wright 02 Feb '14

02 Feb '14

> > Yes. Amateur RF is synonymous with low bandwidth. We have unique > capabilities but it's with low bandwidth like 1200 baud, 9600 baud, > 100K ID1's and hopefully soon UDRX at 56K+. > > BBHN (Broadband hamnet, was HSMM) is generally more interested with > connectivity than performance. Unfortunately too many experimenters > there are new and not familiar with the lessons of 145.01 or 144.39... > Even implemented with good RF design the MESH ad-hoc based system has > compromises. I tried streaming the next episode of Torchwood from > Amazon a couple nights ago and my NW-MESH (based on HSMM-MESH) home > system wouldn't do it. I don't think that's even HD. :( > Precisely. I think it is fine for radio hams to experiment with attaching some cool new experimental toy to the backbone, for whatever they want to do with it! Play with it and and have fun - that's what any hobby is for, and ham radio not the least.. But people really need to remember old the days of digipeaters on a single simplex frequency and make sure we don't return there, or at the very least Ubiquiti M2/M3/M5 dual-chain AirMax nanobridges et al running on the ham bands are the new jesus. Steve

2 1

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 24
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 01 Feb '14

01 Feb '14

> Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:33:41 -0800 > From: Bill Vodall <wa7nwp(a)gmail.com> > To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> > Subject: Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19 <snip> > BBHN (Broadband hamnet, was HSMM) is generally more interested with > connectivity than performance. Unfortunately too many experimenters > there are new and not familiar with the lessons of 145.01 or 144.39... > Even implemented with good RF design the MESH ad-hoc based system has > compromises. I tried streaming the next episode of Torchwood from > Amazon a couple nights ago and my NW-MESH (based on HSMM-MESH) home > system wouldn't do it. I don't think that's even HD. :( Here in Green Bay, WI a few of us have been messing with point to point 802.11 since 1999. Sadly there isn't enough interest (mostly due to the average ham club members age I suspect), for it to advance much beyond that... so far. Although I have finally pulled some strings for commercial tower space come spring. Without one end up high (above the average 100 foot trees), you need amplifiers to go anywhere, or a MESH node every couple miles? So far I have not done anything with Mesh, and it sort of makes sense for the distance/propagation delima.. Till I think, wait a second, 802.11 is still half duplex, so when you make a (metric) hop using a mesh topology, aren't you effectively cutting your bandwidth in half? So there is more to this than throw a bunch of nodes out there. (bandwidth and hidden transmitter stuff), there is just no easy way around a decently designed network.. backbones! Then there is the oh, well we want to expand the network this way (something not in the original plan), and how to make the subnet and routes all work, short of re-addressing everything. I watched the HamWAN DCC video.. and I have often thought about 5 GHz Mikrotik Groove as they way I'd go if I were to invest in equipment again. More so, if bouncing off say a water tower actually is doable. Steve, KB9MWR

1 0

Re: [44net] Updated BGP design (was 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 20)
by Bryan Fields 01 Feb '14

01 Feb '14

On 1/29/14 2:05 PM, Steve Wright wrote: > This mesh crap really needs to be binned, or at the very least not try and > do anything important over it, such as route an entire /16. If you want to > connect a /24 with it to make a neat local play toy then go for it, but > using it as an enterprise routing tool is absurd at the very least, and at > it's WORST, it's very likely to just completely stop anyone from trying to > build anything new over it because it's connectivity and throughput sucks. This. So this is how I'd see it work, I need to write up a proposal for it. You have regional BGP routers that route subnets to the internet. These could then tunnel the subnets to end users via GRE. End users could route via an IGP over this tunnel to the regional speaker(s). Multiple tunnels would give redundancy. The regional speakers would have a tunnel between them. In the event of an outage the other BGP speakers would route subnets. Multiple links from end users to other BGP speakers (or non-speakers that are aggravation routers) would provide redundancy to the end users. Of course nothing prevents having a direct BGP speaker with an RF link to end users, most data centers will not have roof rights however. We could setup redistribution that would pull announcements from BGP if end nodes went down. Each BGP speaker could announce the subnets it knows about and a /8 providing we have a mesh of the backbone bgp speakers. Thoughts? -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

10 13

Re: [44net] DNS records 44.131.56.0/24
by Michael E Fox - N6MEF 31 Jan '14

31 Jan '14

We've had a year of people putting things in, only to be told it isn't live yet. Damped annoying. If the thing is not live and if any entries made now will not be put in, then please, please take the darn link off the website until it IS ready. Michael Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Chris <chris(a)g1fef.co.uk> Date:01/20/2014 12:49 PM (GMT-08:00) To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> Subject: Re: [44net] DNS records 44.131.56.0/24 (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Basically, the DNS portion of the portal is ready and awaiting deployment, we are implementing an email robot to run alongside, much the same as we did for the gateway robot, once it is completed and tested the whole thing can be deployed. The email robot should be ready in about a week. When it is deployed we will announce the fact on this list at which point any new requests will be processed, any requests sent in prior to the deployment will not be processed. Regards, Chris > On 20 Jan 2014, at 20:34, Nick G4IRX <g4irx.44net(a)nowindows.net> wrote: > > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > _______________________________________________ > Thanks for clarifying Chris. Presumably my requests will sit there until it becomes active? > > Nick. > >> On 20/01/2014 20:20, Chris wrote: >> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) >> _______________________________________________ >> The DNS section of the portal is not active yet > > _________________________________________ > 44Net mailing list > 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu > http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

2 1

[nos-bbs] strange udp broadcasts...
by Nigel Vander Houwen 31 Jan '14

31 Jan '14

First, apologies for this email not being a valid reply. Finally got around to getting on the mailing list, so I haven't gotten the previous thread to reply to. I've adjusted our scripting that generates our AMPR tunnels on the HamWAN edge routers to disable neighbor discovery for those interfaces, and the change should now be in effect. Thanks, Nigel K7NVH

4 4

Re: [44net] [nos-bbs] strange udp broadcasts...
by Don Moore 30 Jan '14

30 Jan '14

I too am getting this and have been for a few weeks now but initiated by a different address... 07:04:00.406011 IP 209.189.196.68 > 192.168.1.150: IP 0.0.0.0.5678 > 255.255.255.255.5678: UDP, length 119 (ipip-proto-4) 07:05:00.408246 IP 209.189.196.68 > 192.168.1.150: IP 0.0.0.0.5678 > 255.255.255.255.5678: UDP, length 119 (ipip-proto-4) 73, Don On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Jerome Schatten <romers(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > 44ers... > > So every minute of every hour of every day, I get this below; it started > several weeks ago. It looks like it's coming from the Ampr portal -- why? > 24.84.205.232 is indeed my ip and it seems that 209.84.205.232 is the > same ip as the rip broadcasts are coming from. Is there any way to turn > this off other than turning off rip? > > Wed Jan 29 21:35:27 2014 - tun0 recv: > IP: len 167 209.189.196.68->192.168.1.149 ihl 20 ttl 55 DF prot IP > IP: len 147 0.0.0.0->255.255.255.255 ihl 20 ttl 64 prot UDP > UDP: len 127 5678->5678 Data 119 > 0000 ..1.....Seattle-ER1....6.7....MikroTik............FLNH-GLS0....R > 0040 B2011UAS......................T......ampr-24.84.205.232 > (encap) 0.0.0.0->255.255.255.255 UDP > 0000 ..1.....Seattle-ER1....6.7....MikroTik............FLNH-GLS0....R > 0040 B2011UAS......................T......ampr-24.84.205.232 > > jerome - ve7ass > > _______________________________________________ > nos-bbs mailing list > nos-bbs(a)tapr.org > http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/nos-bbs >

6 7

Getting mikrotik router gateway connected to amprgw
by Ryan Elliott Turner 30 Jan '14

30 Jan '14

Hi list, I'm trying to get a mikrotik RB2011 connected to AMPRGW but not having success. /ip route check 44.0.0.1 status: ok interface: ampr-gw nexthop: 44.0.0.1 /tool traceroute 44.0.0.1 # ADDRESS LOSS SENT LAST AVG BEST WORST STD-DEV STATUS 1 44.34.128.1 0% 2 0.5ms 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 host unreachable from 44.34.128.1 2 0% 0 0ms Using the sniffer, I've tried to also ping my address (44.34.128.1) from the outside, but it does not get through. In addition, pinging 44.0.0.1 from the router fails as well (tracert shown above). I do however see a discovery attempt going out and not getting any response back. /tool sniffer quick interface=ampr-gw INTERFACE TIME NUM DIR SRC-MAC DST-MAC VLAN SRC-ADDRESS DST-ADDRESS PROTOCOL SIZE ampr-gw 33.3 1 -> 44.34.128.1:5678 (discovery) 255.255.255.255:5678 (discovery) ip:udp 114 I do have an IPIP interface to the edge router for 44.24.240.0/20, and that is operating properly; I can access their network, and they can access mine. So, I'm a bit puzzled by this. My config amprgw: /interface ipip add local-address=99.173.137.24 name=ampr-gw remote-address=169.228.66.251 /ip route add distance=1 dst-address=44.0.0.0/8 gateway=ampr-gw Any help is greatly appreciated! -- Ryan Turner

3 8

Re: [44net] Updated BGP design (was 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 20)
by Bryan Fields 30 Jan '14

30 Jan '14

On 1/30/14 12:47 AM, Heikki Hannikainen wrote: > As I understand it, currently all BGP sites must have an IPIP gateway too > to enable connectivity with all the rest of the non-BGP sites. This, i've got it going, but requiring a mesh of tunnels is nasty and it's hard to maintain (absent custom protocols) As it stands now, my BGP space can talk to the rest of the internet, but no other 44/8 (excluding the 9 BGP subnets). I'd love to write up an draft proposal for AMPRnet on how to fix this, but I just don't have the time right now. I'd want it as a standard that works on all routers at least for the "core". Perhaps even a route reflector software would work (ALU/CSCO/JNPR have this now). Even foundcade would work, the MLX's don't shit the bed anymore :) Mikrotik is not something you can put in a CO/datacenter for obvious reasons. I'd love to say we need a custom protocol, but the chances of getting that supported on anything production grade is slim to none. Argh, I'll have to make time to do this. I travel about 75% of the time for work, it sucks. I'm a bit hungover in an airport now even :) 73's -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

1 0

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 3, Issue 20
by Steve Wright 29 Jan '14

29 Jan '14

With the BPG routed system, the > gateway is another weak link in the routing chain. What happens if > the BPG gateway goes down - every station down stream is isolated. > Yes thats correct. Why do you think an unreliable gateway is the proper way to build a network? If that subnet needs failover, then add failover. This is a volunteer effort, with > distributed network design and management. > No, it's a volunteer effort that's broken, because everyone wants to over-engineer some new unduly-complicated idea into a very uncomplicated system that actually works REALLY WELL EVERYWHERE else.. > What we have now, with IPIP Encap (protocol 4) is a FULLY MESHED > network. How much better can you get than a network that speaks DIRECTLY > gateway to gateway with NO intermediate hops??? Isn't this one of the > benefits of HSMM-Mesh in that any node that has a path to another node can > continue to pass traffic when other nodes have failed? > > This mesh crap really needs to be binned, or at the very least not try and do anything important over it, such as route an entire /16. If you want to connect a /24 with it to make a neat local play toy then go for it, but using it as an enterprise routing tool is absurd at the very least, and at it's WORST, it's very likely to just completely stop anyone from trying to build anything new over it because it's connectivity and throughput sucks. It's just a subnet for gods sake - stop playing with it and route the shit already, then we might actually get to DO SOMETHING over it. Puhleeease.. >

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net