44net

44net@mailman.ampr.org

2 participants
3170 discussions

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 2, Issue 83

by Bryan Fields

On 7/7/13 12:13 PM, Bill Vodall wrote: > It should only cost about $1K each node and some hundreds of hours. > Then, when it's working - if you do find the paths, there will be > endless discussions of what can and can't flow on the system and what > keys can or can't be used. > > Compare that to Facebook today with a broadband account that just works. > > It'll be hard enough getting a path with an ID-1 (price reduced - $710 > at HRO) or UDR56K... Then you still have the content and use case > issues... First, most linking repeater systems cost 5-10k for a basic setup, so 1k a node is not out of line. Perhaps it's un-amateur of me, but I'm not so much concerned with potential minor part 97 violations if it means I'm on the air with others and providing a service to hams at large. Much like the legalities of dancing on ATV, I don't care to arm-chair lawyer mp3's over a data link, or logging every frame I send over the air. If something needs to change in part 97, I'll sign whatever petition, or comment on it if need be. I'm an engineer, and building networks is fun for me, not arguing about why we can't do it. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

11 years, 5 months

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 2, Issue 83

by Rob Janssen

>I remember hearing about these though I'd consider these to be somewhat of >an oddity. again why 70cm, only 30MHZ wide & already filled with other >users? Why is everyone so damn scared and afraid of moving to the amateur >microwave bands where we have 1555MHZ of mostly unused spectrum from >1.2-47.2GHz? Why must we recreate the wheel so much of the time when it >may be better, faster, easier, & cheaper to use directly or adapt a >solution already in use in another service. >Eric >AF6EP Well, partly because the availability of solutions in other services puts our band in danger. For example, the presence of WiFi in the 13cm band (we have 2320-2450) already resulted in a ban to use 2400-2450 because of WiFi interference. The same will probably happen on the 5.7 GHz band now that it is becoming more popular for WiFi. 70cm is only 10 MHz here and part of that is already allocated to other services and we are only secondary to them. 1240-1300 we are going to lose when Galileo (the European GPS) is becoming deployed. Only a small segment for DX will probably be left (1296) The more a band is attractive for other services, the more likely we are going to lose it soon. The much higher bands will remain availble for now, but they are not as attractive. Rob

11 years, 5 months

a common vendor neutral hardware/software stack for 44net. - was Re: hardware vs. software

by Eric Fort

It would seem Linux and Ethernet whatever architecture it's running on would seem to be the best solution available for routing Net44 at the moment and it works well. a standardized plug and play package of hardware sold by your local candy store would be nice but we're only partially there. Being that 44NET/Amprnet is supposed to be a RADIO BASED IP NETWORK (or at least interconnected islands of RADIO BASED IP NETWORK) we seem to only have half of a standardized solution to offer. It seems that we have forgotten the RADIO part. Given a live piece of cat5 with bits on it that I wish to have show up elsewhere what can we offer to the average ham that can go on the tower with Ethernet in one side and an antenna on the other, especially something standard enough that a local group can set up a network with? The only thing I can think of that even comes close is the professional grade 802.11 hardware that's out there. (much of the consumer stuff lacks the configurablity we could really use such as power control and timeouts). I might propose that we standardize the RF interface for AMPRNET on an agreed physical layer (of 802.11 unless something else is proposed and made quickly and cheaply available) and a relatively standard stack of hardware and software be put forth as a package that could be turnkey deployed by interested parties. What would others think of embarking upon such a project as a group? who might be interested? and what might we offer? (PS. I know of at least one manufacture of gear that would be quite happy to mod a standard product or products so as to have them better fit the amateur radio band plan and channels on a couple of our microwave bands as well as make provision for the ability to get significant QRO above the 25-30dbm out that seems standard. This in production batches maybe as low as lots of 100 units) Eric On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Michael E. Fox - N6MEF <n6mef(a)mefox.org>wrote: > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > _______________________________________________ > Actually, Linux on x86 hardware is just as much of a "hardware-based" > solution as any proprietary OS on proprietary hardware is. In fact, Linux > on x86 easily outperforms most proprietary hardware solutions up to and > beyond the Cisco 7x00 range, especially with the current Intel architecture > systems. Vyatta (now part of Brocade) and others have proven that over and > over for the last several years. > > I hope we can establish something that's vendor neutral, rather than any > type of single vendor lock-in. > > Michael > N6MEF > > > ---- > > In the performance class we are operating in, "hardware based" is not > really > required. > A suitable box (processor and ethernet interfaces) and software (e.g. Linux > plus some usermode > tools) can do the same thing. > > _________________________________________ > 44Net mailing list > 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu > http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net > http://www.ampr.org/donate.html >

11 years, 5 months

Hessu

by Brian Rogers

Hessu; Can you please email me off list? Thanks in advance. -- Brian Rogers Phone: 860-673-4537 Email: n1uro(a)gmx.com Web: http://www.n1uro.net/ Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/ Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org/ Platform: Linux URONode/axMail-Fax created here! Coordinator for: 1-land, DE, and N.J AmprNet

11 years, 5 months

Re: [44net] DMVPN routing for 44/8 subnets

by Bryan Fields

On 6/27/13 2:26 PM, K7VE - John wrote: > Great idea - wrong platform. Cisco specific solutions aren't reachable for > many. > > Look at Linux (Raspberry Pi) solutions or powerful, affordable routers like > MIkroTik and common tunneling protocols like OpenVPN, L2TP, GRE, etc. I take issue with that. MikroTik is just as much of a closed platform as Cisco/JNPR/ALU/Fond-cade/etc. Cisco is ubiquitous, to a lesser extent Juniper (though I have to favor ALU for MPLS/core!). I'd say what we need is an open standards based solution that works across linux/cisco/jnpr (maybe an o-series? :) Something custom protocol wise to tie the 44net together is not ideal either as we cannot expect the big router vendors to support amprnet protocols. I know I'm able to slap a 1ru router (ie c2[6-9]00) in lots of places with good connectivity I could never put a server. I belive there is a way to do this via NHRP with BGP. I know I have a customer doing something like this. Since we don't need crypto for 44net I suspect it would work for us. just my .02 73's -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net

11 years, 5 months

DMVPN routing for 44/8 subnets

by jesse＠hindmarsh.cc

I am working on a lab design to add some flexibility and test other connection methods to the 44.0.0.0/8 network. I currently have a Linux gateway running rip44d for my main connectivity to the other 44/8 subnets. I have setup a Cisco based DMVPN where I can route other subnets to and route back to the Linux gateway for access to other subnets. This configuration also allows access from the public Internet to the allocated subnets via a Linux gateway. I have a diagram with a working layout and is in testing now. I am looking to see if anyone might be interested in connecting up to my cloud and see what and if any problems we may encounter. I use a very similar setup with my customers and there are some distinct advantages: - The end user would only need an internet connection and a Cisco DMVPN capable router. I have used 800, 1800, 2800, 3700 series Cisco routers. - The DMVPN works when you plug the Cisco router into a direct Internet or NAT connection. You can plug it in at home behind your Netgear home router, use DHCP and a private address on the router "public" interface. - Many subnets can be routed through a single Linux gateway and distributed easily. - No issues with dynamic IP address from your provider. If you are interested or have any comments or suggestions, take a look at the network diagram I made at http://www.hindmarsh.cc/images/wc3xs-ampr44.png 73 de WC3XS - Jesse

11 years, 5 months

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 2, Issue 78

by Rob Janssen

Jesse Hindmarsh <jesse(a)hindmarsh.cc> wrote: > > > > > > Rob, > > I like your thinking. Are you a Cisco guy too? I have been for too long :-) > > I am still partial to hardware based solutions. > > Jesse - WC3XS, CCNP Voice, CCNP RS, CCDA I learned networking with the KA9Q software and later when I got a job as a sysadmin I worked with existing Cisco routers and found many things very familiar. I learned the Cisco stuff myself from the manuals, have no CC certifications. I converted our existing network at work from leased lines to VPN some 10 years ago over Internet using DMVPN and it worked very well. (now we have dedicated lines again, but that wasn't affordable at megabit speeds 10 years ago) I suggested DMVPN before on this list, and I still think it could be a good option at least when an open implementation is available. I don't know if it is today, it has been in the works for some time. (the specs are open) In the performance class we are operating in, "hardware based" is not really required. A suitable box (processor and ethernet interfaces) and software (e.g. Linux plus some usermode tools) can do the same thing. I run IPsec tunnels between Ciscos, between Linux boxes, and between Cisco and Linux, and it is all inter-operating well. Of course we don't want to tie outselves to "only Cisco". But a solution where Cisco and open implementations (on systems like Linux and BSD) inter-operate is a very good thing. IMHO we don't need to consider compatibility with DOS (e.g. JNOS on DOS) as critical anymore. Rob

11 years, 5 months

Re: [44net] 44Net Digest, Vol 2, Issue 77

by Rob Janssen

K7VE - John <k7ve(a)k7ve.org> wrote: > Great idea - wrong platform. Cisco specific solutions aren't reachable for many. > > Look at Linux (Raspberry Pi) solutions or powerful, affordable routers like MIkroTik and common tunneling protocols like OpenVPN, L2TP, GRE, etc. The big advantage of Cisco DMVPN is that it can create a fully meshed tunnel network with endpoints on dynamic addresses, with only one (or a few) central hubs on static addresses, fully automatically. It is like what you have with a JNOS or Linux route importing encap.txt all the time, but without the hassle. Other VPN solutions are usually hub-and-spoke, where all internode traffic goes through the central hub. It is like connecting to net-44 by tunneling everything to 169.228.66.251 instead of loading a routing table. Rob

11 years, 5 months

Re: [44net] Basic help needed with Linux and rip44d

by lleachii＠aol.com

Jesse, Take a look at my startup script at http://44.60.44.13/startampr It seems you have a similar setup, although one line of your configuration seems incorrect: ip route add 44/8 via 169.228.66.251 dev tunl0 onlink src 44.64.192.253 You should remove this route, it's invalid inside AMPR. You should not reach 44.0.0.0/8 via AMPRGW (169.228.66.251), you should reach each subnet via its gateway WAN IP address, as populated by rip44d. The return packet would come in the same manner, via their 44GW that has a route configured for you. My router: @kb3vwg-001:~# ip route get 44.64.192.253 44.64.192.253 via 24.229.88.252 dev tunl0 src 172.31.255.254 My route table shows: 44.64.192.0/24 via 24.229.88.252 dev tunl0 onlink window 840 73, Lynwood KB3VWG

11 years, 5 months

Contact needed please

by Brian Rogers

Greetings list; Could the coordinator for 44.135/16 contact me off-list please? Thanks in advance. -- Brian Rogers Phone: 860-673-4537 Email: n1uro(a)gmx.com Web: http://www.n1uro.net/ Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/ Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org/ Platform: Linux

11 years, 5 months

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

44net