44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

3196 discussions

Re: [44net] Radio-based networking
by Paul Delaney - K6HR 21 Aug '13

21 Aug '13

Same here, all dressed up with nowhere to go! I maintained 6 radio ports for quite a long time utilizing HF/VHF/UHF 1200/9600/PACTOR3, even satellite. No users. No more fun. I eventually reinvested that money in other areas of the hobby. Judging by the replies so far I think it's fairly safe to say there is little to no tcp/ip over radio in use anymore. Paul Delaney - K6HR http://k6hr.dyndns.org:8080 On 08/21/13, JJ wrote: (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ On 13-08-21 11:19 AM, Brian Kantor wrote: > > Is anyone actually using the network over radio at this point? > Could you supply some details? > I have 4 RF ports, 2 hf, 2 vhf, all ip capable, but there's no-one in my area to route to over the air...and forget trying tcipip @ 300 baud hf, lol, that wud be painful...but I cud turn the beam and route to ka0mos over vhf... prolly not very helpful, but yes, I use/would use ip over RF, I have b4, and I will again! _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html

1 0

Re: [44net] Radio-based networking
by Paul Delaney - K6HR 21 Aug '13

21 Aug '13

An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/44net/attachments/20130821/7ee0c10…>

1 0

Re: [44net] Radio-based networking
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 21 Aug '13

21 Aug '13

------ Quote ------ Is anyone actually using the network over radio at this point? Could you supply some details? We had been using the 44 net space and TCP/IP over radio (1200/9600) for many years here in Wisconsin. We even ran Webservers on those links. This made the 1999 CQ and CQ-VHF magazine. Our original packet organization's (WAPR) webpage was accessible via radio. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/wapr/ Now most of the 1200 baud portions of the network are dead, and only a few have moved on to 802.11 options. I and four others in Green Bay have been mostly doing remote backups using rsync over 802.11 for several years now. A few years back I ran a PBX with a 802.11 trunk to my friends house.

1 0

Re: [44net] Radio-based networking
by Brian Rogers 21 Aug '13

21 Aug '13

Hello Brian et al; > I'm in the process of preparing a new document on the AMPRNet. > I'd like to include a section on the radio-based portions of the > network. > > Is anyone actually using the network over radio at this point? > Could you supply some details? You may be interested in this link: http://bythebays.net/neflexnet/howtotcp.htm It's a document I drafted with k2mf a few years back. ********************** 73 de Brian N1URO ********************** Spam {n}: an entity using smtp via internet to force humans to revert back to paper, pencil, and postage for mail communications.

1 0

Re: [44net] Something simple
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 20 Aug '13

20 Aug '13

>> Well seems every platform is a bit different. The ip route command >> works a bit different from Debian to Redhat. Here are the errors when >> I tried to run rip44d on CentOS platform: >> >> route del failed: 'LANG=C /sbin/ip route del 44.183.0.0/255.255.0.0': >> Error: an >> inet prefix is expected rather than "44.183.0.0/255.255.0.0". > >This looks really odd. rip44d runs ip route commands with a prefix >length, not a netmask. Was that with a current, unmodified version of >rip44d (https://raw.github.com/hessu/rip44d/master/rip44d) ? > >- Hessu That was an older version. I just tried it again, using CentOS 5.5 and it works as expected. Which is great

1 0

IP Protocol 4 in DD-WRT and rip44d script
by Demetre SV1UY 20 Aug '13

20 Aug '13

Hi all, Is anyone using a DD-WRT router (I use a TL-WR1043ND with DD-WRT) for his/her AMPRnet GATEWAY 44.154.0.1? I have the following problem here. I have included support in my DD-WRT Router's IPTABLES for IPIP (IP Protocol 4) with the command "iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p 4 -j DNAT --to 192.168.250.66" in it's Firewall, but this does not seem to work. I wonder if I need to also port forward UDP port 520 to the same IP, but I don't think so because I think rip44d uses UDP port 520 for outgoing packets only. When I put my GATEWAY's ethernet IP (192.168.250.66) in DMZ then rip44d works fine, but then my AMPRnet GATEWAY is really exposed and I need to write an extensive IPTABLES SCRIPT. Is there a way for rip44d to work behind NAT? Is my "iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p 4 -j DNAT --to 192.168.250.66" command enough for my DD-WRT or am I wrong? Could anyone help please? 73 de Demetre SV1UY IP coordinator for AMPRnet in Greece e-mail demetre.sv1uy(a)gmail.com

8 21

Re: [44net] Something simple
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 20 Aug '13

20 Aug '13

Well seems every platform is a bit different. The ip route command works a bit different from Debian to Redhat. Here are the errors when I tried to run rip44d on CentOS platform: route del failed: 'LANG=C /sbin/ip route del 44.183.0.0/255.255.0.0': Error: an inet prefix is expected rather than "44.183.0.0/255.255.0.0". route add failed: 'LANG=C /sbin/ip route add 44.183.0.0/255.255.0.0 via 130.208.168.63 dev tunl0 window 840 onlink': Error: an inet prefix is expected rather than "44.183.0.0/255.255.0.0". route del failed: 'LANG=C /sbin/ip route del 44.208.0.0/255.255.0.0': Error: an inet prefix is expected rather than "44.208.0.0/255.255.0.0". route add failed: 'LANG=C /sbin/ip route add 44.208.0.0/255.255.0.0 via 94.101.48.134 dev tunl0 window 840 onlink': Error: an inet prefix is expected rather than "44.208.0.0/255.255.0.0". route del failed: 'LANG=C /sbin/ip route del 44.142.0.0/255.254.0.0': Error: an inet prefix is expected rather than "44.142.0.0/255.254.0.0". route add failed: 'LANG=C /sbin/ip route add 44.142.0.0/255.254.0.0 via

2 1

re: Something simple
by Rod Ekholm 20 Aug '13

20 Aug '13

Single point of presence only for vast connectivity. I have read others ideas about having multiple GP hosts.. That is a great concept. As for vendor non-specific.. I think just about any common platform of routing will do. What I hate to see is something that has to be run on a certain box. Whether it be RIP44d, or any other specifically modified routing protocol. You don't see Cisco's specific standards being used across platforms, because they can only be used with other Cisco boxes. While I am stating all this all to obvious information, i do realize there have been some very long nights and likely some personal sacrifices that folks have made to have 44Net what it is today. i just think there needs to be a road map developed like any project, to make sure everyone that has the common interest be allowed to play, and not be locked down to what flavor they have to have. Be it PPP, VPN, BGP with some redundancy, vanilla, chocolate... I don't have the answer, because it's too big to wrap my head around this early in my game. I'd be willing to be part of something that can define and help others though. -- Rod Ekholm

1 0

Re: [44net] Something simple
by kb9mwr＠gmail.com 20 Aug '13

20 Aug '13

Rod, I can't speak for everyone. What do you propose that isn't vendor specific? There was some talk about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Multipoint_Virtual_Private_Network And there seems to be an open source compatibility here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/opennhrp/ I'd be willing to dabble with this, if someone else wants to. The common point of presence idea, might make things simpler, but then that is a possible point of failure.

1 0

Who is teqsys.net and why is he sending me RIP?
by Mark Phillips 18 Aug '13

18 Aug '13

All, Like the subject says. I've noticed I'm getting a RIP update from 81.174.253.193 which contains only a few of the major subnets in our nework. Anyone got a clue as to whom this is and why they are sending them? Thanks Mark

4 4

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net